An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement: A Research Framework for Pulmonary Nodule Evaluation and Management.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary nodules are frequently detected during diagnostic chest imaging and as a result of lung cancer screening. Current guidelines for their evaluation are largely based on low-quality evidence, and patients and clinicians could benefit from more research in this area. METHODS: In this research statement from the American Thoracic Society, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates reviewed available evidence for pulmonary nodule evaluation, characterized six focus areas to direct future research efforts, and identified fundamental gaps in knowledge and strategies to address them. We did not use formal mechanisms to prioritize one research area over another or to achieve consensus. RESULTS: There was widespread agreement that novel tests (including novel imaging tests and biopsy techniques, biomarkers, and prognostic models) may improve diagnostic accuracy for identifying cancerous nodules. Before they are used in clinical practice, however, better evidence is needed to show that they improve more distal outcomes of importance to patients. In addition, the pace of research and the quality of clinical care would be improved by the development of registries that link demographic and nodule characteristics with patient-level outcomes. Methods to share data from registries are also necessary. CONCLUSIONS: This statement may help researchers to develop impactful and innovative research projects and enable funders to better judge research proposals. We hope that it will accelerate the pace and increase the efficiency of discovery to improve the quality of care for patients with pulmonary nodules.

Blood-based lung cancer biomarkers identified through proteomic discovery in cancer tissues, cell lines and conditioned medium.

BACKGROUND: Support for early detection of lung cancer has emerged from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), in which low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening reduced lung cancer mortality by 20 % relative to chest x-ray. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently recommended annual screening for the high-risk population, concluding that the benefits (life years gained) outweighed harms (false positive findings, abortive biopsy/surgery, radiation exposure). In making their recommendation, the USPSTF noted that the moderate net benefit of screening was dependent on the resolution of most false-positive results without invasive procedures. Circulating biomarkers may serve as a valuable adjunctive tool to imaging. RESULTS: We developed a broad-based proteomics discovery program, integrating liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS) analyses of freshly resected lung tumor specimens (n = 13), lung cancer cell lines (n = 17), and conditioned media collected from tumor cell lines (n = 7). To enrich for biomarkers likely to be found at elevated levels in the peripheral circulation of lung cancer patients, proteins were prioritized based on predicted subcellular localization (secreted, cell-membrane associated) and differential expression in disease samples. 179 candidate biomarkers were identified. Several markers selected for further validation showed elevated levels in serum collected from subjects with stage I NSCLC (n = 94), relative to healthy smoker controls (n = 189). An 8-marker model was developed (TFPI, MDK, OPN, MMP2, TIMP1, CEA, CYFRA 21-1, SCC) which accurately distinguished subjects with lung cancer (n = 50) from high risk smokers (n = 50) in an independent validation study (AUC = 0.775). CONCLUSIONS: Integrating biomarker discovery from multiple sample types (fresh tissue, cell lines and conditioned medium) has resulted in a diverse repertoire of candidate biomarkers. This unique collection of biomarkers may have clinical utility in lung cancer detection and diagnoses.

Targeted therapy for non-small cell lung cancer.

The treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer has been with systemic chemotherapy and usually consists of a platinum doublet chemotherapy. The identification of somatic driver mutations has resulted in new drugs that target these mutations. This report discusses the two most important new targeted therapy drugs for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer that have these driver mutations.

Screening for lung cancer: the US studies.

Efforts in lung cancer screening with chest X-ray (CXR) and sputum cytology in the 1970s and 1980s were negative. In the ensuing decade, the early lung cancer action project (ELCAP), and the Mayo screening study showed the promise of low-dose CT. These and other studies led to the National lung screening study (NLST), which showed definitively that low-dose spiral computed tomography had a measurable impact on mortality and could be justified as a tool for lung cancer screening. This review examines the results of past and recent studies of lung cancer screening.

Non-small-cell lung cancer.

In the decade since the last Lancet Seminar on lung cancer there have been advances in many aspects of the classification, diagnosis, and treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). An international panel of experts has been brought together to focus on changes in the epidemiology and pathological classification of NSCLC, the role of CT screening and other techniques that could allow earlier diagnosis and more effective treatment of the disease, and the recently introduced seventh edition of the TNM classification and its relation to other prognostic factors such as biological markers. We also describe advances in treatment that have seen the introduction of a new generation of chemotherapy agents, a proven advantage to adjuvant chemotherapy after complete resection for specific stage groups, new techniques for the planning and administration of radiotherapy, and new surgical approaches to assess and reduce the risks of surgical treatment.

Screening for lung cancer: for patients at increased risk for lung cancer, it works.

Screening for lung cancer is not currently recommended, even in persons at high risk for this condition. Most patients with lung cancer present with symptomatic disease that is usually at an incurable, advanced stage. The recently reported NLST (National Lung Screening Trial) showed a 20% decrease in deaths from lung cancer in high-risk persons undergoing screening with low-dose computed tomography of the chest compared with chest radiography. The high-risk group included in the trial comprised asymptomatic persons aged 55 to 74 years, with smoking history of at least 30 pack-years. Screening with low-dose computed tomography detected more cases of early-stage lung cancer and fewer cases of advanced-stage cancer, confirming that screening has shifted the stage of cancer at diagnosis and provides more persons with the opportunity for curative treatment. Although computed tomography screening has risks and limitations, the 20% decrease in deaths is the single most dramatic decrease ever reported for deaths from lung cancer, with the possible exception of smoking cessation. Physicians should offer computed tomography screening for lung cancer to patients who fit the high-risk profile defined in the NLST.

Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease, resulting in a very low 5-year survival. Screening may reduce the risk of death from lung cancer. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the evidence regarding the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). A multisociety collaborative initiative (involving the American Cancer Society, American College of Chest Physicians, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network) was undertaken to create the foundation for development of an evidence-based clinical guideline. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid: January 1996 to April 2012), EMBASE (Ovid: January 1996 to April 2012), and the Cochrane Library (April 2012). STUDY SELECTION: Of 591 citations identified and reviewed, 8 randomized trials and 13 cohort studies of LDCT screening met criteria for inclusion. Primary outcomes were lung cancer mortality and all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included nodule detection, invasive procedures, follow-up tests, and smoking cessation. DATA EXTRACTION: Critical appraisal using predefined criteria was conducted on individual studies and the overall body of evidence. Differences in data extracted by reviewers were adjudicated by consensus. RESULTS: Three randomized studies provided evidence on the effect of LDCT screening on lung cancer mortality, of which the National Lung Screening Trial was the most informative, demonstrating that among 53,454 participants enrolled, screening resulted in significantly fewer lung cancer deaths (356 vs 443 deaths; lung cancer−specific mortality, 274 vs 309 events per 100,000 person-years for LDCT and control groups, respectively; relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93; absolute risk reduction, 0.33%; P = .004). The other 2 smaller studies showed no such benefit. In terms of potential harms of LDCT screening, across all trials and cohorts, approximately 20% of individuals in each round of screening had positive results requiring some degree of follow-up, while approximately 1% had lung cancer. There was marked heterogeneity in this finding and in the frequency of follow-up investigations, biopsies, and percentage of surgical procedures performed in patients with benign lesions. Major complications in those with benign conditions were rare. CONCLUSION: Low-dose computed tomography screening may benefit individuals at an increased risk for lung cancer, but uncertainty exists about the potential harms of screening and the generalizability of results.

Fluorescence in situ hybridization testing algorithm improves lung cancer detection in bronchial brushing specimens.

RATIONALE: Bronchoscopically collected cytology specimens are commonly used to obtain a diagnosis of cancer in patients with pulmonary lesions. However, the sensitivity of cytology is suboptimal, especially for peripheral lesions less than 2 cm in diameter. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the performance of a testing algorithm using cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) as part of clinical practice. METHODS: Bronchial brushing specimens (n = 343) were obtained from patients undergoing bronchoscopy for indeterminate pulmonary lesions. Routine cytology was performed and specimens without a positive diagnosis (n = 294) were analyzed by FISH, using residual brushing material. Pathology-confirmed lung cancer or clinical/radiographic evidence of disease was considered diagnostic of malignancy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Routine cytology had a sensitivity and specificity of 41% (23 of 56) and 100% (45 of 45) for central lesions and 20% (26 of 133) and 100% (109 of 109) for peripheral nodules, respectively. FISH detected an additional 32% of lung cancers (18 central and 43 peripheral) not detectable by cytology alone, while producing false positive diagnoses in 22% (10 of 45) and 6% (6 of 109) benign central and peripheral lesions, respectively. In peripheral nodules, FISH detected (relative to routine cytology) an additional 44% (15 of 34) and 28% (25 of 91) of lung cancers less than 2 cm and 2 cm or more in size, respectively. A positive FISH result had a likelihood ratio of 1.45 and 5.87 for central and peripheral lesions and 3.44 and 15.38 for peripheral nodules less than 2 cm and 2 cm or more in size, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: FISH testing significantly increases the detection of lung cancer over routine cytology alone. It is especially useful for peripheral nodules.

Knowledge and Practice Patterns Among Pulmonologists for Molecular Biomarker Testing in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with oncogenic drivers have caused a paradigm shift in care. Biomarker testing is needed to assess eligibility for these therapies. Pulmonologists often perform bronchoscopy, providing tissue for both pathologic diagnosis and biomarker analysis. We performed this survey to define the existing knowledge and practices regarding the pulmonologists' role in biomarker testing for advanced NSCLC. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the current knowledge and practice of pulmonologists regarding biomarker testing and targeted therapies in advanced NSCLC? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study was performed using an electronic survey of a random sample of 7,238 pulmonologists. Questions focused on diagnostic steps and biomarker analyses for NSCLC. RESULTS: A total of 453 pulmonologists responded. Respondents vary by reported lung cancer patient volume, ranging from 51% evaluating one to four new cases per month to 19% evaluating > 10 cases per month. Interventional training, academic practice setting, and higher volume of endobronchial ultrasound with transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) were associated with increased knowledge of practice guidelines for the number of recommended passes during EBUS-TBNA (P < .05). Academic pulmonologists more commonly performed or referred for EBUS-TBNA than community pulmonologists (96% and 83%, respectively; P < .0005). Higher testing rates were associated with interventional training, academic setting, and the presence of an institutional policy, whereas lower testing rates were associated with general pulmonologists, practice in community settings, and lack of a guiding institutional policy (P < .05). INTERPRETATION: Substantial differences among pulmonologists' evaluation of advanced NSCLC, variation in knowledge of available biomarkers and the importance of targeted therapies, and differences in institutional coordination likely lead to underutilization of biomarker testing. Interventional training appears to drive improved knowledge and practice for biomarker testing more than practice setting. Improvements are needed in tissue acquisition and interdisciplinary coordination to ensure universal and comprehensive testing for eligible patients.

Advances in the diagnosis of lung cancer: contribution of molecular biology to bronchoscopic diagnosis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Considerable advances in genomics, transcriptomics and proteomics have in the recent years transformed our understanding of the molecular mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of lung cancer and are in the process of revolutionizing our approach to its diagnosis and treatment. Although these techniques have traditionally been described in the context of large volume biopsies from surgically resected tumors, significant technical advances allow their application to smaller samples obtained bronchoscopically, often the only samples available in advanced lung cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent data support the use of advanced molecular techniques as an adjunct to conventional histologic examinations of bronchoscopy specimens in the following situations: early diagnosis and screening of nonsmall cell lung cancer by fluorescent in-situ hybridization techniques in particular; accurate histologic diagnosis via novel immunohistochemistry markers; and prognosis and prediction of response to targeted and conventional chemotherapeutic agents. SUMMARY: Molecular biology techniques are increasingly applied to smaller biopsy specimens obtained via bronchoscopy, allowing for their use in advanced, unresectable nonsmall cell lung cancer. Although these techniques have not yet entered the clinical practice arena, they will likely become an unavoidable complement to conventional morphologic examinations and allow for individualized diagnostic and therapeutic approach to lung-cancer patients.

Road ahead to respiratory health: experts chart future research directions.

Respiratory illnesses are a huge and rising burden to health-care systems and societies worldwide. Research is crucial to tackle the enormous problem of chest diseases. However the vast number of research questions and available research approaches often creates confusion and risks dilution of resources by spreading them too diffusely. Clear research directions will help to use research funds efficiently to provide treatment advances that benefit patient care. This paper presents the visions of leading experts on future research directions, focusing on what should rather than what is going to be done. These opinions provide a guide for new investigators and a platform for intellectual debates through which coordinated research efforts can help progress towards respiratory health.

Phase III randomized, double-blind study of maintenance CAI or placebo in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after completion of initial therapy (NCCTG 97-24-51).

PURPOSE: This study assessed whether maintenance therapy with carboxyaminoimidazole (CAI), compared to placebo, prolonged overall survival in stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients who had tumour regression or stable disease after treatment with one chemotherapy regimen. METHODS: After completion of chemotherapy, patients were randomized to receive daily oral CAI at 250mg or placebo. Treatment continued until patient refusal, disease progression or unacceptable adverse event (AE). Quality of life (QOL) was assessed by UNISCALE and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for Lung Cancer (FACT-L). RESULTS: Registration was halted early for slow accrual (targeted 360, randomized 186: 94 CAI, 92 placebo). All patients were off active treatment at time of analyses. Non-haematologic AEs (primarily grade 1, 2) observed significantly more often in the CAI group included fatigue (54.5% versus 29.3%), anorexia (31.1% versus 13.0%), nausea (62.2% versus 30.4%), vomiting (32.2% versus 14.1%), neurosensory (60.0% versus 44.6%) and ataxia (33.3% versus 16.3%). Patients discontinued treatment for AEs, death on study or refusal more often in the CAI group (36.0% versus 8.7%, p<0.0001). No significant differences in survival or time to progression were observed (median: CAI versus placebo: 11.4 months versus 10.5 months, log rank p=0.54; 2.8 months versus 2.4 months, log rank p=0.50). More patients receiving CAI reported a clinically significant (10-point) decline in QOL particularly on the functional (58% versus 37%, p=0.05) construct of FACT-L and UNISCALE (72% versus 51%, p=0.04). CONCLUSION: The addition of CAI following chemotherapy does not provide clinical benefit or improvement in QOL over placebo in advanced NSCLC.

Do patients with schizophrenia receive state-of-the-art lung cancer therapy? A brief report.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with schizophrenia sometimes receive substandard medical care. This study explored such disparities among lung cancer patients with underlying schizophrenia. METHODS: This retrospective study focused on patients with pre-existing schizophrenia (or in some instances schizoaffective disorder) and a lung cancer diagnosis made between 1980 and 2004. 'Disparity' was defined as a patient's having been prescribed less aggressive therapy for a potentially curable cancer based on state-of-the-art treatment standards for the time and for the cancer stage. Qualitative methods were used to assess healthcare providers' decision-making. RESULTS: 29 patients were included. The median age was 59 years; 38% were men. Twenty-three had non-small cell lung cancer and 6 small cell lung cancer; 17 had potentially curable cancers. Five of 17 had a 'disparity' in cancer care: (1) no cancer therapy was prescribed because of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; (2) no cancer therapy was prescribed because of infection; (3) no chemotherapy was prescribed because the patient declined it; radiation was provided; (4) no chemotherapy was prescribed because of the patient's schizophrenia symptoms; radiation was administered; and (5) no surgery was performed because of disorientation from a lobotomy; radiation was prescribed. Comments from healthcare providers suggest reflection and ethical adjudication in decision-making. CONCLUSION: Schizophrenia was never the sole reason for no cancer treatment in patients with potentially curable lung cancer. This study provides the impetus for others to begin to assess the effect of schizophrenia on lung cancer management in other healthcare settings.

Phase I trial of sorafenib in combination with gefitinib in patients with refractory or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the combination of sorafenib and gefitinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In this dose-escalation trial, patients received oral sorafenib (200-400 mg) twice daily with gefitinib (250 mg orally) once daily to identify the recommended dose for phase II trials (RDP; part A). The pharmacokinetics of the RDP were characterized further in additional patients (part B) receiving single-agent gefitinib or sorafenib for 21 days followed by a 7-day washout with crossover to the other agent for an additional 21 days. Patients then received the combination of sorafenib plus gefitinib in 28-day cycles. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor efficacy were evaluated. Potential drug-drug interactions and the relationship between pharmacokinetics and toxicity were also assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were treated (n=12, part A; n=19, part B). Most adverse events were grade 1/2. The most frequent grade 3/4 events included diarrhea and elevated alanine aminotransferase (both 9.7%). One dose-limiting toxicity occurred (part A: elevated alanine aminotransferase at 400 mg twice daily). Gefitinib had no effect on sorafenib pharmacokinetics. However, gefitinib C(max) (26%) and area under the curve (38%) were reduced by concomitant sorafenib. One patient had a partial response; 20 (65%; n=8, part A; n=12, part B) had stable disease >or=4 months. The RDP was sorafenib 400 mg twice daily with gefitinib 250 mg once daily. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib combined with gefitinib is well tolerated, with promising efficacy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Studies to further investigate the significance of the reduction in gefitinib exposure by sorafenib are warranted.

Extent of Resection and Lymph Node Assessment for Clinical Stage T1aN0M0 Typical Carcinoid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: The optimal extent of lung resection and lymph node (LN) assessment for surgical treatment of clinical stage T1aN0M0 typical carcinoid tumors is unclear. Using a cohort including only these patients, we aimed to determine the impact of extent of lung resection and LN assessment on overall survival. METHODS: Patients undergoing lobectomy or sublobar resection for clinical stage T1aN0M0 intraparenchymal typical carcinoid tumor were identified in the National Cancer Data Base from 1998 to 2012. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine overall survival. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine independent predictors of mortality. RESULTS: Of 1,495 patients, 536 (35.9%) had sublobar resection (wedge resection, n = 429; segmentectomy, n = 91) and 959 (64.2%) had lobectomy. There were 366 patients (24.5%) with no LN assessment. As tumor size increased, sublobar resection decreased and LN assessment increased. Overall, 60 patients (4.0%) were upstaged. Fifty-two patients were upstaged because of LN metastases (40 pN1, 11 pN2, and 1 pN3). The 5-year overall survival rate was 87%. It was 88% for lobectomy versus 87% for sublobar resection (p = 0.3), 65% for LN upstaging versus 89% for patients without LN upstaging, and 86% for patients with no LN assessment (p = 0.002). Independent predictors of mortality included LN upstaging, age, male sex, and Charlson comorbidity index. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with clinical stage T1aN0M0 typical carcinoid, sublobar resection results in similar overall survival compared with lobectomy. However, regardless of resection type, LN assessment is important to identify LN upstaging, the strongest independent predictor of overall mortality.

Cost-effectiveness of an autoantibody test (EarlyCDT-Lung) as an aid to early diagnosis of lung cancer in patients with incidentally detected pulmonary nodules.

OBJECTIVE: Patients who have incidentally detected pulmonary nodules and an estimated intermediate risk (5-60%) of lung cancer frequently are followed via computed tomography (CT) surveillance to detect nodule growth, despite guidelines for a more aggressive diagnostic strategy. We examined the cost-effectiveness of an autoantibody test (AABT)-Early Cancer Detection Test-Lung (EarlyCDT-LungTM)-as an aid to early diagnosis of lung cancer among such patients. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model to evaluate use of the AABT versus CT surveillance alone. In the model, patients with a positive AABT-because they are at substantially enhanced risk of lung cancer-are assumed to go directly to biopsy, resulting in diagnosis of lung cancer in earlier stages than under current guidelines (a beneficial stage shift). Patients with a negative AABT, and those scheduled for CT surveillance alone, are assumed to have periodic CT screenings to detect rapid growth and thus to have their lung cancers diagnosed-on average-at more advanced stages. RESULTS: Among 1,000 patients who have incidentally detected nodules 8-30 mm, have an intermediate-risk of lung cancer, and are evaluated by CT surveillance alone, 95 (9.5%) are assumed to have lung cancer (local, 73.6%; regional, 22.0%; distant, 4.4%). With use of the AABT set at a sensitivity/specificity of 41%/93% (stage shift = 10.8%), although expected costs would be higher by $949,442 ($949 per person), life years would be higher by 53 (0.05 per person), resulting in a cost per life-year gained of $18,029 and a cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of $24,330. With use of the AABT set at a sensitivity/specificity of 28%/98% (stage shift = 7.4%), corresponding cost-effectiveness ratios would be $18,454 and $24,833. CONCLUSIONS: Under our base-case assumptions, and reasonable variations thereof, using AABT as an aid in the early diagnosis of lung cancer in patients with incidentally detected pulmonary nodules who are estimated to be at intermediate risk of lung cancer and are scheduled for CT surveillance alone is likely to be a cost-effective use of healthcare resources.