Risk of COVID-19 death for people with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis prior to COVID-19-vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

While previous reviews found a positive association between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death, most early studies did not distinguish long-term cancer survivors from those recently diagnosed/treated, nor adjust for important confounders including age. We aimed to consolidate higher-quality evidence on risk of COVID-19-related death for people with recent/active cancer (compared to people without) in the pre-COVID-19-vaccination period. We searched the WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database (20 December 2021), and Medline and Embase (10 May 2023). We included studies adjusting for age and sex, and providing details of cancer status. Risk-of-bias assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled adjusted odds or risk ratios (aORs, aRRs) or hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using generic inverse-variance random-effects models. Random-effects meta-regressions were used to assess associations between effect estimates and time since cancer diagnosis/treatment. Of 23 773 unique title/abstract records, 39 studies were eligible for inclusion (2 low, 17 moderate, 20 high risk of bias). Risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with active or recently diagnosed/treated cancer (general population: aOR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.36-1.61, I2 = 0; people with COVID-19: aOR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.41-1.77, I2 = 0.58; inpatients with COVID-19: aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.34-2.06, I2 = 0.98). Risks were more elevated for lung (general population: aOR = 3.4, 95% CI: 2.4-4.7) and hematological cancers (general population: aOR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.68-2.68, I2 = 0.43), and for metastatic cancers. Meta-regression suggested risk of COVID-19-related death decreased with time since diagnosis/treatment, for example, for any/solid cancers, fitted aOR = 1.55 (95% CI: 1.37-1.75) at 1 year and aOR = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.80-1.20) at 5 years post-cancer diagnosis/treatment. In conclusion, before COVID-19-vaccination, risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with recent cancer, with risk depending on cancer type and time since diagnosis/treatment.

Pulmonary fibrosis and lung cancer: an analysis of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to the National Cancer Registration Dataset.

We quantified the proportion of diagnoses of pulmonary fibrosis (PF) among 25 136 people with lung cancer and 250 583 matched controls and compared the natural history of lung cancer in people with and without PF. Diagnoses of PF were more common in people with lung cancer than those without (1.5% vs 0.8%, OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.77 to 2.21). Within people with PF, squamous cell carcinoma was more (22.9% vs 19.1%), and adenocarcinoma was less common (18.0% vs 21.3%). People with PF were less likely to have stage 4 disease at diagnosis (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.65) but their survival was worse.

Defining the road map to a UK national lung cancer screening programme.

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT was recommended by the UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC) in September, 2022, on the basis of data from trials showing a reduction in lung cancer mortality. These trials provide sufficient evidence to show clinical efficacy, but further work is needed to prove deliverability in preparation for a national roll-out of the first major targeted screening programme. The UK has been world leading in addressing logistical issues with lung cancer screening through clinical trials, implementation pilots, and the National Health Service (NHS) England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme. In this Policy Review, we describe the consensus reached by a multiprofessional group of experts in lung cancer screening on the key requirements and priorities for effective implementation of a programme. We summarise the output from a round-table meeting of clinicians, behavioural scientists, stakeholder organisations, and representatives from NHS England, the UKNSC, and the four UK nations. This Policy Review will be an important tool in the ongoing expansion and evolution of an already successful programme, and provides a summary of UK expert opinion for consideration by those organising and delivering lung cancer screenings in other countries.

Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on lung cancer survival in England: an analysis of the rapid cancer registration dataset.

Early changes in lung cancer care can affect survival. Given the decrease in diagnosis during lockdowns, we calculated their impact on survival using National Lung Cancer Audit data. Percentage survival and HRs for death were compared between 2019 and lockdown periods of 2020. Decreased survival was observed from the first national lockdown onwards and within 90 days of diagnosis. HRs were highest for people diagnosed at the end of 2020 at 1.26 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.32) for death within 90 days and 1.51 (95% CI 1.42 to 1.60) for death between 91 and 270 days. Further work is needed on measures to mitigate this impact.

Developing a Pan-European Technical Standard for a Comprehensive High-quality Lung Cancer CT Screening Program. An ERS Technical Standard.

Screening for lung cancer with low radiation dose computed tomography (LDCT) has a strong evidence base. The European Council adopted a recommendation in November 2022 that lung cancer screening be implemented using a stepwise approach. The imperative now is to ensure that implementation follows an evidence-based process that delivers clinical and cost effectiveness. This ERS Taskforce was formed to provide a technical standard for a high-quality lung cancer screening program. METHOD: A collaborative group was convened to include members of multiple European societies (see below). Topics were identified during a scoping review and a systematic review of the literature was conducted. Full text was provided to members of the group for each topic. The final document was approved by all members and the ERS Scientific Advisory Committee. RESULTS: Ten topics were identified representing key components of a screening program. The action on findings from the LDCT were not included as they are addressed by separate international guidelines (nodule management and clinical management of lung cancer) and by a linked taskforce (incidental findings). Other than smoking cessation, other interventions that are not part of the core screening process were not included (e.g. pulmonary function measurement). Fifty-three statements were produced and areas for further research identified. CONCLUSION: This European collaborative group has produced a technical standard that is a timely contribution to implementation of LCS. It will serve as a standard that can be used, as recommended by the European Council, to ensure a high quality and effective program.

ERS/ESTS/ESTRO/ESR/ESTI/EFOMP statement on management of incidental findings from low dose CT screening for lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Screening for lung cancer with low radiation dose computed tomography has a strong evidence base, is being introduced in several European countries and is recommended as a new targeted cancer screening programme. The imperative now is to ensure that implementation follows an evidence-based process that will ensure clinical and cost effectiveness. This European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force was formed to provide an expert consensus for the management of incidental findings which can be adapted and followed during implementation. METHODS: A multi-European society collaborative group was convened. 23 topics were identified, primarily from an ERS statement on lung cancer screening, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted according to ERS standards. Initial review of abstracts was completed and full text was provided to members of the group for each topic. Sections were edited and the final document approved by all members and the ERS Science Council. RESULTS: Nine topics considered most important and frequent were reviewed as standalone topics (interstitial lung abnormalities, emphysema, bronchiectasis, consolidation, coronary calcification, aortic valve disease, mediastinal mass, mediastinal lymph nodes and thyroid abnormalities). Other topics considered of lower importance or infrequent were grouped into generic categories, suitable for general statements. CONCLUSIONS: This European collaborative group has produced an incidental findings statement that can be followed during lung cancer screening. It will ensure that an evidence-based approach is used for reporting and managing incidental findings, which will mean that harms are minimised and any programme is as cost-effective as possible.

Clinical trials in cancer screening, prevention and early diagnosis (SPED): a systematic mapping review.

BACKGROUND: Global annual cancer incidence is forecast to rise to 27.5 M by 2040, a 62% increase from 2018. For most cancers, prevention and early detection are the most effective ways of reducing mortality. This study maps trials in cancer screening, prevention, and early diagnosis (SPED) to identify areas of unmet need and highlight research priorities. METHODS: A systematic mapping review was conducted to evaluate all clinical trials focused on cancer SPED, irrespective of tumour type. The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) portfolio, EMBASE, PubMed and Medline were searched for relevant papers published between 01/01/2007 and 01/04/2020. References were exported into Covidence software and double-screened. Data were extracted and mapped according to tumour site, geographical location, and intervention type. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen thousand seven hundred one abstracts were screened, 5157 full texts reviewed, and 2888 studies included. 1184 (52%) trials focussed on screening, 554 (24%) prevention, 442 (20%) early diagnosis, and 85 (4%) a combination. Colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer comprised 61% of all studies compared with 6.4% in lung and 1.8% in liver cancer. The latter two are responsible for 26.3% of global cancer deaths compared with 19.3% for the former three. Number of studies varied markedly according to geographical location; 88% were based in North America, Europe, or Asia. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows clear disparities in the volume of research conducted across different tumour types and according to geographical location. These findings will help drive future research effort so that resources can be directed towards major challenges in cancer SPED.

Ninety-day mortality following lung cancer surgery: outcomes from the English national clinical outcomes audit.

Accurately explaining perioperative mortality and risk to patients is an essential part of shared decision making. In the case of lung cancer surgery, the currently available multivariable mortality prediction tools perform poorly, and could mislead patients. Using data from 2004 to 2012, this group has previously produced data tables for 90-day postoperative mortality, to be used as a communication aid in the consenting process. Using National Lung Cancer Clinical Outcomes audit data from 2017 to 2018, we have produced updated early mortality tables, to reflect current thoracic surgery practice.

Selection of eligible participants for screening for lung cancer using primary care data.

Lung cancer screening is effective if offered to people at increased risk of the disease. Currently, direct contact with potential participants is required for evaluating risk. A way to reduce the number of ineligible people contacted might be to apply risk-prediction models directly to digital primary care data, but model performance in this setting is unknown. METHOD: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a computerised, longitudinal primary care database, was used to evaluate the Liverpool Lung Project V.2 (LLPv2) and Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian (modified 2012) (PLCOm2012) models. Lung cancer occurrence over 5-6 years was measured in ever-smokers aged 50-80 years and compared with 5-year (LLPv2) and 6-year (PLCOm2012) predicted risk. RESULTS: Over 5 and 6 years, 7123 and 7876 lung cancers occurred, respectively, from a cohort of 842 109 ever-smokers. After recalibration, LLPV2 produced a c-statistic of 0.700 (0.694-0.710), but mean predicted risk was over-estimated (predicted: 4.61%, actual: 0.9%). PLCOm2012 showed similar performance (c-statistic: 0.679 (0.673-0.685), predicted risk: 3.76%. Applying risk-thresholds of 1% (LLPv2) and 0.15% (PLCOm2012), would avoid contacting 42.7% and 27.4% of ever-smokers who did not develop lung cancer for screening eligibility assessment, at the cost of missing 15.6% and 11.4% of lung cancers. CONCLUSION: Risk-prediction models showed only moderate discrimination when applied to routinely collected primary care data, which may be explained by quality and completeness of data. However, they may substantially reduce the number of people for initial evaluation of screening eligibility, at the cost of missing some lung cancers. Further work is needed to establish whether newer models have improved performance in primary care data.

External validation of a convolutional neural network artificial intelligence tool to predict malignancy in pulmonary nodules.

BACKGROUND: Estimation of the risk of malignancy in pulmonary nodules detected by CT is central in clinical management. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) offers an opportunity to improve risk prediction. Here we compare the performance of an AI algorithm, the lung cancer prediction convolutional neural network (LCP-CNN), with that of the Brock University model, recommended in UK guidelines. METHODS: A dataset of incidentally detected pulmonary nodules measuring 5-15 mm was collected retrospectively from three UK hospitals for use in a validation study. Ground truth diagnosis for each nodule was based on histology (required for any cancer), resolution, stability or (for pulmonary lymph nodes only) expert opinion. There were 1397 nodules in 1187 patients, of which 234 nodules in 229 (19.3%) patients were cancer. Model discrimination and performance statistics at predefined score thresholds were compared between the Brock model and the LCP-CNN. RESULTS: The area under the curve for LCP-CNN was 89.6% (95% CI 87.6 to 91.5), compared with 86.8% (95% CI 84.3 to 89.1) for the Brock model (p≤0.005). Using the LCP-CNN, we found that 24.5% of nodules scored below the lowest cancer nodule score, compared with 10.9% using the Brock score. Using the predefined thresholds, we found that the LCP-CNN gave one false negative (0.4% of cancers), whereas the Brock model gave six (2.5%), while specificity statistics were similar between the two models. CONCLUSION: The LCP-CNN score has better discrimination and allows a larger proportion of benign nodules to be identified without missing cancers than the Brock model. This has the potential to substantially reduce the proportion of surveillance CT scans required and thus save significant resources.

Evaluation of cardiovascular risk in a lung cancer screening cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) offers an opportunity to impact both lung cancer and coronary heart disease mortality through detection of coronary artery calcification (CAC). Here, we explore the value of CAC and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment in LCS participants in the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, current and ex-smokers aged 60-75 were invited to a 'lung health check'. Data collection included a CVD risk assessment enabling estimation of 10 year CVD risk using the QRISK2 score. Participants meeting the required lung cancer risk underwent an ungated, non-contrast LDCT. Descriptive data, bivariate associations and a multivariate analysis of predictors of statin use are presented. RESULTS: Of 1005 individuals enrolled, 680 were included in the final analysis. 421 (61.9%) had CAC present and in 49 (7.2%), this was heavy. 668 (98%) of participants had a QRISK2≥10% and QRISK2 was positively associated with increasing CAC grade (OR 4.29 (CI 0.93 to 19.88) for QRISK2=10%-20% and 12.29 (CI 2.68 to 56.1) for QRISK2≥20% respectively). Of those who qualified for statin primary prevention (QRISK2≥10%), 56.8% did not report a history of statin use. In the multivariate analysis statin use was associated with age, body mass index and history of hypertension and diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: LCS offers an important opportunity for instituting CVD risk assessment in all LCS participants irrespective of the presence of LDCT-detected CAC. Further studies are needed to determine whether CAC could enhance uptake and adherence to primary preventative strategies.

What characteristics of primary care and patients are associated with early death in patients with lung cancer in the UK?

BACKGROUND: The UK has poor lung cancer survival rates and high early mortality, compared to other countries. We aimed to identify factors associated with early death, and features of primary care that might contribute to late diagnosis. METHODS: All cases of lung cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2013 were extracted from The Health Improvement Network database. Patients who died within 90 days of diagnosis were compared with those who survived longer. Standardised chest X-ray (CXR) and lung cancer rates were calculated for each practice. RESULTS: Of 20,142 people with lung cancer, those who died early consulted with primary care more frequently prediagnosis. Individual factors associated with early death were male sex (OR 1.17; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.24), current smoking (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.28 to 1.61), increasing age (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.62 to 1.99 for age ≥80 years compared to 65-69 years), social deprivation (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.30 for Townsend quintile 5 vs 1) and rural versus urban residence (OR 1.22; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.41). CXR rates varied widely, and the odds of early death were highest in the practices which requested more CXRs. Lung cancer incidence at practice level did not affect early deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who die early from lung cancer are interacting with primary care prediagnosis, suggesting potentially missed opportunities to identify them earlier. A general increase in CXR requests may not improve survival; rather, a more timely and appropriate targeting of this investigation using risk assessment tools needs further assessment.

Early diagnosis pivotal to survival in lung cancer.

The UK has been highlighted, by the International Cancer Benchmarking Project and the EUROCARE groups, as a country with one of the lowest lung cancer survival rates. It has been postulated that this is due to an excess of early deaths, delays in diagnosis are thought to contribute to this problem. A recent study showed that 30% of patients with lung cancer die within the first 90 days and they have seen their GP on average five times in the four months before diagnosis, suggesting there may be opportunities to diagnose these patients earlier in the disease process. The challenge GPs face is to identify and refer those at risk as early as possible and to maintain a high index of suspicion if symptoms persist. The SIGN guideline reiterates the importance of performing a chest X-ray in those in whom the suspicion of lung cancer has been raised and not to be falsely reassured by a normal chest X-ray in a high-risk patient. The initial investigation of choice in secondary care remains a CT scan of the chest and abdomen, followed by PET-CT scanning in those deemed suitable for potentially curative treatment. Smoking cessation reduces the risk of post-operative and systemic treatment-related complications and also reduces the chance of cancer recurrence. Surgery remains the initial treatment of choice for those with early stage disease in NSCLC who are deemed fit enough. Those who have early stage NSCLC (stage I or stage II) who are either medically inoperable or decline surgery should be offered radical radiotherapy. Hospital follow-up should be continued while patients are receiving treatment, complemented by clinical nurse specialist input alongside community support. All patients should have access to specialist palliative care teams. Those with palliative care input have improved quality of life and symptom control and fewer hospitalisations.

The incidence of lung cancer amongst primary care chest radiograph referrals; an evaluation of national and local datasets within the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of lung cancer amongst primary care referrals for investigation with a chest radiograph (CXR). METHOD: Retrospective evaluation of datasets from the national Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and from a single large regional centre. Data was extracted for cohorts of consecutive adults aged over 40-yrs for whom a CXR had been performed between 2016 and 2018. Using cancer registry data, the incidence of lung cancer within a two-years of the CXR referral and the variations with age, gender and smoking status were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 291 294 CXR events were evaluated from the combined datasets. The incidence of lung cancer amongst GP CXR referrals was 1.4% in CPRD with a consistent correlation with increasing age and smoking status. The incidence of lung cancer within two-years of the CXR varied between 0.03% (95%CI 0.0-0.1) amongst never smokers aged 40-45 years to 4.8% (95%CI 4.2-5.5) amongst current-smokers aged 70-75 years. The findings were similar for the single large centre data, although cancer incidence was higher. CONCLUSIONS: A simple estimation and stratification of the risk of lung cancer amongst primary care referrals for investigation with a CXR is possible using age and smoking status. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first estimate of the incidence of lung cancer amongst primary care CXR referrals and a demonstration of how the demographic information contained within a request could be used to optimise investigations and interpret test results.

Determining the impact of an artificial intelligence tool on the management of pulmonary nodules detected incidentally on CT (DOLCE) study protocol: a prospective, non-interventional multicentre UK study.

INTRODUCTION: In a small percentage of patients, pulmonary nodules found on CT scans are early lung cancers. Lung cancer detected at an early stage has a much better prognosis. The British Thoracic Society guideline on managing pulmonary nodules recommends using multivariable malignancy risk prediction models to assist in management. While these guidelines seem to be effective in clinical practice, recent data suggest that artificial intelligence (AI)-based malignant-nodule prediction solutions might outperform existing models. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a prospective, observational multicentre study to assess the clinical utility of an AI-assisted CT-based lung cancer prediction tool (LCP) for managing incidental solid and part solid pulmonary nodule patients vs standard care. Two thousand patients will be recruited from 12 different UK hospitals. The primary outcome is the difference between standard care and LCP-guided care in terms of the rate of benign nodules and patients with cancer discharged straight after the assessment of the baseline CT scan. Secondary outcomes investigate adherence to clinical guidelines, other measures of changes to clinical management, patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been reviewed and given a favourable opinion by the South Central-Oxford C Research Ethics Committee in UK (REC reference number: 22/SC/0142).Study results will be available publicly following peer-reviewed publication in open-access journals. A patient and public involvement group workshop is planned before the study results are available to discuss best methods to disseminate the results. Study results will also be fed back to participating organisations to inform training and procurement activities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05389774.

Lung nodules: sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Pulmonary nodules are a common finding on CT scans of the chest. In the United Kingdom, management should follow British Thoracic Society Guidelines, which were published in 2015. This review covers key aspects of nodule management also looks at new and emerging evidence since then.