Timely follow-up of positive cancer screening results: A systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium.

Timely follow-up for positive cancer screening results remains suboptimal, and the evidence base to inform decisions on optimizing the timeliness of diagnostic testing is unclear. This systematic review evaluated published studies regarding time to follow-up after a positive screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. The quality of available evidence was very low or low across cancers, with potential attenuated or reversed associations from confounding by indication in most studies. Overall, evidence suggested that the risk for poorer cancer outcomes rises with longer wait times that vary within and across cancer types, which supports performing diagnostic testing as soon as feasible after the positive result, but evidence for specific time targets is limited. Within these limitations, we provide our opinion on cancer-specific recommendations for times to follow-up and how existing guidelines relate to the current evidence. Thresholds set should consider patient worry, potential for loss to follow-up with prolonged wait times, and available resources. Research is needed to better guide the timeliness of diagnostic follow-up, including considerations for patient preferences and existing barriers, while addressing methodological weaknesses. Research is also needed to identify effective interventions for reducing wait times for diagnostic testing, particularly in underserved or low-resource settings. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:199-216. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Rates of Downstream Procedures and Complications Associated With Lung Cancer Screening in Routine Clinical Practice : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality but can lead to downstream procedures, complications, and other potential harms. Estimates of these events outside NLST (National Lung Screening Trial) have been variable and lacked evaluation by screening result, which allows more direct comparison with trials. OBJECTIVE: To identify rates of downstream procedures and complications associated with LCS. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 5 U.S. health care systems. PATIENTS: Individuals who completed a baseline LDCT scan for LCS between 2014 and 2018. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes included downstream imaging, invasive diagnostic procedures, and procedural complications. For each, absolute rates were calculated overall and stratified by screening result and by lung cancer detection, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: Among the 9266 screened patients, 1472 (15.9%) had a baseline LDCT scan showing abnormalities, of whom 140 (9.5%) were diagnosed with lung cancer within 12 months (positive predictive value, 9.5% [95% CI, 8.0% to 11.0%]; negative predictive value, 99.8% [CI, 99.7% to 99.9%]; sensitivity, 92.7% [CI, 88.6% to 96.9%]; specificity, 84.4% [CI, 83.7% to 85.2%]). Absolute rates of downstream imaging and invasive procedures in screened patients were 31.9% and 2.8%, respectively. In patients undergoing invasive procedures after abnormal findings, complication rates were substantially higher than those in NLST (30.6% vs. 17.7% for any complication; 20.6% vs. 9.4% for major complications). LIMITATION: Assessment of outcomes was retrospective and was based on procedural coding. CONCLUSION: The results indicate substantially higher rates of downstream procedures and complications associated with LCS in practice than observed in NLST. Diagnostic management likely needs to be assessed and improved to ensure that screening benefits outweigh potential harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute and Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening CT After a Provider Order for Screening in the PROSPR-Lung Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of lung cancer screening (LCS) has been slow with less than 20% of eligible people who currently or formerly smoked reported to have undergone a screening CT. OBJECTIVE: To determine individual-, health system-, and neighborhood-level factors associated with LCS uptake after a provider order for screening. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: We conducted an observational cohort study of screening-eligible patients within the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR)-Lung Consortium who received a radiology referral/order for a baseline low-dose screening CT (LDCT) from a healthcare provider between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome is screening uptake, defined as LCS-LDCT completion within 90 days of the screening order date. KEY RESULTS: During the study period, 18,294 patients received their first order for LCS-LDCT. Orders more than doubled from the beginning to the end of the study period. Overall, 60% of patients completed screening after receiving their first LCS-LDCT order. Across health systems, uptake varied from 41 to 87%. In both univariate and multivariable analyses, older age, male sex, former smoking status, COPD, and receiving care in a centralized LCS program were positively associated with completing LCS-LDCT. Unknown insurance status, other or unknown race, and lower neighborhood socioeconomic status, as measured by the Yost Index, were negatively associated with screening uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 40% of patients referred for LCS did not complete a LDCT within 90 days, highlighting a substantial gap in the lung screening care pathway, particularly in decentralized screening programs.

Quantifying the Value of Reduced Health Disparities: Low-Dose Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening of High-Risk Individuals Within the United States.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to measure the value of increasing lung cancer screening rates for high-risk individuals and its impact on health disparities. METHODS: The model estimated changes in health economic outcomes if low-dose computed tomography screening increased from current to 100% compliance, following clinical guidelines. Current low-dose computed tomography screening rates were estimated by income, education, and race, using 2017-2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data. The model contained a decision tree module to segment the population by screening outcomes and a Markov chain module to estimate cancer progression over time. Model parameters included information on survival, quality of life, and costs related to cancer diagnosis, treatment, and adverse events. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis estimated the net monetary value from reduced health disparities-measured using quality-adjusted life expectancy-across income, education, and race groups. Outcomes were assessed over 30 years. RESULTS: Lung cancer screening eligibility using US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines was higher for individuals with income <$15 000 (47.2%) and without a high-school education (46.1%) than individuals with income >$50 000 (16.6%) and with a college degree (13.5%), respectively. Increasing lung cancer screening to 100% compliance was cost-effective ($64 654 per quality-adjusted life-year) and produced economic value by up to $560 per person ($182.1 billion for United States overall). Up to 32.2% of the value was due to reductions in health disparities. CONCLUSIONS: Significant value in increasing lung cancer screening rates derived from reducing health disparities. Policy makers and clinicians may not be appropriately prioritizing cancer screening if value from reducing health disparities is unconsidered.

Impact of low-dose computed tomography screening on lung cancer incidence and outcomes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review findings from clinical trials of lung cancer screening (LCS), assess contemporary issues with implementation in clinical practice, and review emerging strategies to increase the uptake and efficiency of LCS. RECENT FINDINGS: In 2013, the USPSTF recommended annual screening for individuals aged 55-80 years and currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years based on reduced mortality from lung cancer with annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. Subsequent trials have demonstrated similar mortality outcomes in individuals with lower pack-year smoking histories. These findings, coupled with evidence for disparities in screening eligibility by race, resulted in updated guidelines by USPSTF to broaden eligibility criteria for screening. Despite this body of evidence, implementation in the United States has been suboptimal with fewer than 20% of eligible individuals receiving a screen. Barriers to efficient implementation are multifactorial and include patient, clinician, and system-level factors. SUMMARY: Multiple randomized trials have established that annual LCS reduces mortality from lung cancer; however, several areas of uncertainty exist on the effectiveness of annual LDCT. Ongoing research is examining approaches to improve the uptake and efficiency of LCS, such as the use of risk-prediction models and biomarkers for identification of high-risk individuals.

Artificial Intelligence Tool for Assessment of Indeterminate Pulmonary Nodules Detected with CT.

Background Limited data are available regarding whether computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) improves assessment of malignancy risk in indeterminate pulmonary nodules (IPNs). Purpose To evaluate the effect of an artificial intelligence-based CAD tool on clinician IPN diagnostic performance and agreement for both malignancy risk categories and management recommendations. Materials and Methods This was a retrospective multireader multicase study performed in June and July 2020 on chest CT studies of IPNs. Readers used only CT imaging data and provided an estimate of malignancy risk and a management recommendation for each case without and with CAD. The effect of CAD on average reader diagnostic performance was assessed using the Obuchowski-Rockette and Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method to calculate estimates of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. Multirater Fleiss κ statistics were used to measure interobserver agreement for malignancy risk and management recommendations. Results A total of 300 chest CT scans of IPNs with maximal diameters of 5-30 mm (50.0% malignant) were reviewed by 12 readers (six radiologists, six pulmonologists) (patient median age, 65 years; IQR, 59-71 years; 164 [55%] men). Readers' average AUC improved from 0.82 to 0.89 with CAD (P < .001). At malignancy risk thresholds of 5% and 65%, use of CAD improved average sensitivity from 94.1% to 97.9% (P = .01) and from 52.6% to 63.1% (P < .001), respectively. Average reader specificity improved from 37.4% to 42.3% (P = .03) and from 87.3% to 89.9% (P = .05), respectively. Reader interobserver agreement improved with CAD for both the less than 5% (Fleiss κ, 0.50 vs 0.71; P < .001) and more than 65% (Fleiss κ, 0.54 vs 0.71; P < .001) malignancy risk categories. Overall reader interobserver agreement for management recommendation categories (no action, CT surveillance, diagnostic procedure) also improved with CAD (Fleiss κ, 0.44 vs 0.52; P = .001). Conclusion Use of computer-aided diagnosis improved estimation of indeterminate pulmonary nodule malignancy risk on chest CT scans and improved interobserver agreement for both risk stratification and management recommendations. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Yanagawa in this issue.

Cancer screening in the U.S. through the COVID-19 pandemic, recovery, and beyond.

COVID-19 has proved enormously disruptive to the provision of cancer screening, which does not just represent an initial test but an entire process, including risk detection, diagnostic follow-up, and treatment. Successful delivery of services at all points in the process has been negatively affected by the pandemic. There is a void in empirical high-quality evidence to support a specific strategy for administering cancer screening during a pandemic and its resolution phase, but several pragmatic considerations can help guide prioritization efforts. Targeting guideline-eligible people who have never been screened, or those who are significantly out of date with screening, has the potential to maximize benefits now and into the future. Disruptions to care due to the pandemic could represent an unparalleled opportunity to reassess early detection programs towards an explicit, thoughtful, and just prioritization of populations historically experiencing cancer disparities. By focusing screening services on populations that have the most to gain, and by careful and deliberate planning for the period following the pandemic, we can positively affect cancer outcomes for all.

Comparative Effectiveness of Carboplatin/Pemetrexed With Versus Without Bevacizumab for Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent advances in targeted therapy and immunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), carboplatin/pemetrexed/bevacizumab remains a commonly used first-line regimen. However, it is unknown whether the addition of bevacizumab to carboplatin/pemetrexed improves overall survival (OS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using nationally representative curated electronic health record data from Flatiron Health, we performed a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC who received ≥1 cycle of carboplatin/pemetrexed ± bevacizumab as initial systemic therapy for stage IV or metastatic/recurrent disease. The OS impact of adding bevacizumab to carboplatin/pemetrexed was assessed using a Cox proportional hazards model to adjust for age, sex, race, original tumor stage, time between diagnosis of metastatic disease and start of chemotherapy, and performance status. In a secondary analysis of patients at a single academic institution, we also adjusted for the presence of brain metastases, hemoptysis, and anticoagulation. RESULTS: A total of 4,724 patients were included, of which 2,759 patients (58%) received carboplatin/pemetrexed and 1,965 (42%) received carboplatin/pemetrexed/bevacizumab. Median OS was 12.1 months (95% CI, 11.2-12.9 months) in the carboplatin/pemetrexed/bevacizumab group compared with 8.6 months (95% CI, 8.1-9.1 months) in the carboplatin/pemetrexed group (P<.001). Bevacizumab use remained associated with improved OS in a multivariate model (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.86; P<.001). In the secondary, institutional analysis (N=539), the effect of bevacizumab was unchanged (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.96; P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, real-world dataset, the addition of bevacizumab to first-line carboplatin/pemetrexed for metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC was associated with improved OS.

On meta- and mega-analyses for gene-environment interactions.

Gene-by-environment (G × E) interactions are important in explaining the missing heritability and understanding the causation of complex diseases, but a single, moderately sized study often has limited statistical power to detect such interactions. With the increasing need for integrating data and reporting results from multiple collaborative studies or sites, debate over choice between mega- versus meta-analysis continues. In principle, data from different sites can be integrated at the individual level into a "mega" data set, which can be fit by a joint "mega-analysis." Alternatively, analyses can be done at each site, and results across sites can be combined through a "meta-analysis" procedure without integrating individual level data across sites. Although mega-analysis has been advocated in several recent initiatives, meta-analysis has the advantages of simplicity and feasibility, and has recently led to several important findings in identifying main genetic effects. In this paper, we conducted empirical and simulation studies, using data from a G × E study of lung cancer, to compare the mega- and meta-analyses in four commonly used G × E analyses under the scenario that the number of studies is small and sample sizes of individual studies are relatively large. We compared the two data integration approaches in the context of fixed effect models and random effects models separately. Our investigations provide valuable insights in understanding the differences between mega- and meta-analyses in practice of combining small number of studies in identifying G × E interactions.

Whole blood FPR1 mRNA expression predicts both non-small cell and small cell lung cancer.

While long-term survival rates for early-stage lung cancer are high, most cases are diagnosed in later stages that can negatively impact survival rates. We aim to design a simple, single biomarker blood test for early-stage lung cancer that is robust to preclinical variables and can be readily implemented in the clinic. Whole blood was collected in PAXgene tubes from a training set of 29 patients, and a validation set of 260 patients, of which samples from 58 patients were prospectively collected in a clinical trial specifically for our study. After RNA was extracted, the expressions of FPR1 and a reference gene were quantified by an automated one-step Taqman RT-PCR assay. Elevated levels of FPR1 mRNA in whole blood predicted lung cancer status with a sensitivity of 55% and a specificity of 87% on all validation specimens. The prospectively collected specimens had a significantly higher 68% sensitivity and 89% specificity. Results from patients with benign nodules were similar to healthy volunteers. No meaningful correlation was present between our test results and any clinical characteristic other than lung cancer diagnosis. FPR1 mRNA levels in whole blood can predict the presence of lung cancer. Using this as a reflex test for positive lung cancer screening computed tomography scans has the potential to increase the positive predictive value. This marker can be easily measured in an automated process utilizing off-the-shelf equipment and reagents. Further work is justified to explain the source of this biomarker.

A Bronchial Genomic Classifier for the Diagnostic Evaluation of Lung Cancer.

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.).

Quantification of Serum High Mobility Group Box 1 by Liquid Chromatography/High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry: Implications for Its Role in Immunity, Inflammation, and Cancer.

High mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) is a non-histone chromosomal protein, which can be secreted through a variety of pathways and bind to pattern recognition receptors to release pro-inflammatory cytokines. Previous studies have suggested that HMGB1 is upregulated in numerous inflammatory diseases and that it could be a biomarker for such diseases. However, these studies used immunoassay-based methods to analyze serum HMGB1. Autoantibodies to HMGB1 in serum are found in healthy control subjects as well as in patients with different diseases. HMGB1 also binds to haptoglobin, a highly abundant plasma protein. This means that antibodies used in immunoassays must compete with binding of HMGB1 to endogenous serum HMGB1 autoantibodies and haptoglobin. To overcome these potential problems, we developed and validated a specific and sensitive assay based on stable isotope dilution and immunopurification to quantify HMGB1 in plasma and serum using two-dimensional nano-ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography parallel reaction monitoring/high-resolution mass spectrometry. Using this assay, we found that serum HMGB1 in 24 healthy control subjects (6.0 ± 2.1 ng/mL) was above the mean concentration reported for 18 different diseases (5.4 ± 2.8 ng/mL) where the analyses were conducted with immunoassay methodology. In light of our finding, the role of HMGB1 in these diseases will have to be re-evaluated. The concentration of HMGB1 in citrated and EDTA-treated plasma from the same healthy control subjects was below the limit of detection of our assay (1 ng/mL), confirming that HMGB1 in serum arises when blood is allowed to clot. This means that future studies on the role of HMGB1 in vivo should be conducted on plasma rather than serum.

AJRCCM: 100-Year Anniversary. The Shifting Landscape for Lung Cancer: Past, Present, and Future.

The past century has witnessed a transformative shift in lung cancer from a rare reportable disease to the leading cause of cancer death among men and women worldwide. This historic shift reflects the increase in tobacco consumption worldwide, spurring public health efforts over the past several decades directed at tobacco cessation and control. Although most lung cancers are still diagnosed at a late stage, there have been significant advances in screening high-risk smokers, diagnostic modalities, and chemopreventive approaches. Improvements in surgery and radiation are advancing our ability to manage early-stage disease, particularly among patients considered unfit for traditional open resection. Arguably, the most dramatic progress has occurred on the therapeutic side, with the development of targeted and immune-based therapy over the past decade. This article reviews the major shifts in the lung cancer landscape over the past 100 years. Although many ongoing clinical challenges remain, this review will also highlight emerging molecular and imaging-based approaches that represent opportunities to transform the prevention, early detection, and treatment of lung cancer in the years ahead.

Evaluating Molecular Biomarkers for the Early Detection of Lung Cancer: When Is a Biomarker Ready for Clinical Use? An Official American Thoracic Society Policy Statement.

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.

Stakeholder Research Priorities for Smoking Cessation Interventions within Lung Cancer Screening Programs. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

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.