A Prospective Observational Study of Physical Activity Levels and Physical Fitness of People at High Risk for Lung Cancer.

Introduction: Physical activity (PA) is a potentially modifiable risk factor for lung cancer, with previous research revealing that people who engage in more PA have lower risk of developing lung cancer. PA levels of lung cancer screening participants have not previously been explored. Methods: Participants at a single Australian International Lung Screen Trial site were eligible for assessment of self-reported PA levels (International Physical Activity Questionnaire and Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly) and physical assessments (6-min walk distance, hand grip muscle strength, daily step count, and body composition) at a single time point during lung cancer screening. Statistics were predominantly descriptive, with parametric data presented as mean and SD and nonparametric data presented as median and interquartile range (IQR). Results: A total of 178 participants were enrolled in this study, with a median age of 61 years. Of the participants, 61% were men and 51% were people who currently smoke. The median total International Physical Activity Questionnaire score was 1756 MET/min/wk (IQR 689, 4049). Mean total Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly score was 160 (SD 72), higher than described in healthy sedentary adults. The median daily step count was 7237 steps (IQR 5353, 10,038) and mean 6-minute walk distance was 545 m (SD 92). Median grip strengths were within predicted normal range, with an elevated median percentage body fat and low skeletal muscle mass found on body composition. Conclusion: Almost a quarter of International Lung Screen Trial participants assessed reported low levels of PA and have a potentially modifiable risk factor to improve health outcomes. Larger studies are needed to characterize the burden of inactivity among high-risk lung cancer screening populations.

Validation of the psychosocial consequences of screening in lung cancer questionnaire in the international lung screen trial Australian cohort.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of psychosocial consequences of lung cancer screening with LDCT in high-risk populations has generally been performed using generic psychometric instruments. Such generic instruments have low coverage and low power to detect screening impacts. This study aims to validate an established lung cancer screening-specific questionnaire, Consequences Of Screening Lung Cancer (COS-LC), in Australian-English and describe early results from the baseline LDCT round of the International Lung Screen Trial (ILST). METHODS: The Danish-version COS-LC was translated to Australian-English using the double panel method and field tested in Australian-ILST participants to examine content validity. A random sample of 200 participants were used to assess construct validity using Rasch item response theory models. Reliability was assessed using classical test theory. The COS-LC was administered to ILST participants at prespecified timepoints including at enrolment, dependent of screening results. RESULTS: Minor linguistic alterations were made after initial translation of COS-LC to English. The COS-LC demonstrated good content validity and adequate construct validity using psychometric analysis. The four core scales fit the Rasch model, with only minor issues in five non-core scales which resolved with modification. 1129 Australian-ILST participants were included in the analysis, with minimal psychosocial impact observed shortly after baseline LDCT results. CONCLUSION: COS-LC is the first lung cancer screening-specific questionnaire to be validated in Australia and has demonstrated excellent psychometric properties. Early results did not demonstrate significant psychosocial impacts of screening. Longer-term follow-up is awaited and will be particularly pertinent given the announcement of an Australian National Lung Cancer Screening Program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02871856.

Current and Future Perspectives on Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer: A Roadmap From 2023 to 2027 From the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer substantially reduces mortality from lung cancer, as revealed in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. This review is based on the ninth CT screening symposium of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, which focuses on the major themes pertinent to the successful global implementation of LDCT screening and develops a strategy to further the implementation of lung cancer screening globally. These recommendations provide a 5-year roadmap to advance the implementation of LDCT screening globally, including the following: (1) establish universal screening program quality indicators; (2) establish evidence-based criteria to identify individuals who have never smoked but are at high-risk of developing lung cancer; (3) develop recommendations for incidentally detected lung nodule tracking and management protocols to complement programmatic lung cancer screening; (4) Integrate artificial intelligence and biomarkers to increase the prediction of malignancy in suspicious CT screen-detected lesions; and (5) standardize high-quality performance artificial intelligence protocols that lead to substantial reductions in costs, resource utilization and radiologist reporting time; (6) personalize CT screening intervals on the basis of an individual's lung cancer risk; (7) develop evidence to support clinical management and cost-effectiveness of other identified abnormalities on a lung cancer screening CT; (8) develop publicly accessible, easy-to-use geospatial tools to plan and monitor equitable access to screening services; and (9) establish a global shared education resource for lung cancer screening CT to ensure high-quality reading and reporting.

The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Early Lung Imaging Confederation Open-Source Deep Learning and Quantitative Measurement Initiative.

INTRODUCTION: With global adoption of computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening, there is increasing interest to use artificial intelligence (AI) deep learning methods to improve the clinical management process. To enable AI research using an open-source, cloud-based, globally distributed, screening CT imaging data set and computational environment that are compliant with the most stringent international privacy regulations that also protect the intellectual properties of researchers, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer sponsored development of the Early Lung Imaging Confederation (ELIC) resource in 2018. The objective of this report is to describe the updated capabilities of ELIC and illustrate how this resource can be used for clinically relevant AI research. METHODS: In this second phase of the initiative, metadata and screening CT scans from two time points were collected from 100 screening participants in seven countries. An automated deep learning AI lung segmentation algorithm, automated quantitative emphysema metrics, and a quantitative lung nodule volume measurement algorithm were run on these scans. RESULTS: A total of 1394 CTs were collected from 697 participants. The LAV950 quantitative emphysema metric was found to be potentially useful in distinguishing lung cancer from benign cases using a combined slice thickness more than or equal to 2.5 mm. Lung nodule volume change measurements had better sensitivity and specificity for classifying malignant from benign lung nodules when applied to solid lung nodules from high-quality CT scans. CONCLUSIONS: These initial experiments revealed that ELIC can support deep learning AI and quantitative imaging analyses on diverse and globally distributed cloud-based data sets.

Economic impact of using risk models for eligibility selection to the International lung screening Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Using risk models as eligibility criteria for lung screening can reduce race and sex-based disparities. We used data from the International Lung Screening Trial(ILST; NCT02871856) to compare the economic impact of using the PLCOm2012 risk model or the US Preventative Services' categorical age-smoking history-based criteria (USPSTF-2013). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of using PLCOm2012 versus USPSTF-2013 was evaluated with a decision analytic model based on the ILST and other screening trials. The primary outcomes were costs in 2020 International Dollars ($), quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental net benefit (INB, in $ per QALY). Secondary outcomes were selection characteristics and cancer detection rates (CDR). RESULTS: Compared with the USPSTF-2013 criteria, the PLCOm2012 risk model resulted in $355 of cost savings per 0.2 QALYs gained (INB=$4294 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $20 000/QALY (95 %CI: $4205-$4383). Using the risk model was more cost-effective in females at both a 1.5 % and 1.7 % 6-year risk threshold (INB=$6616 and $6112, respectively), compared with males ($5221 and $695). The PLCOm2012 model selected more females, more individuals with fewer years of formal education, and more people with other respiratory illnesses in the ILST. The CDR with the risk model was higher in females compared with the USPSTF-2013 criteria (Risk Ratio = 7.67, 95 % CI: 1.87-31.38). CONCLUSION: The PLCOm2012 model saved costs, increased QALYs and mitigated socioeconomic and sex-based disparities in access to screening.

Updated cost-effectiveness analysis of lung cancer screening for Australia, capturing differences in the health economic impact of NELSON and NLST outcomes.

BACKGROUND: A national, lung cancer screening programme is under consideration in Australia, and we assessed cost-effectiveness using updated data and assumptions. METHODS: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of lung screening by applying screening parameters and outcomes from either the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) or the NEderlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) to Australian data on lung cancer risk, mortality, health-system costs, and smoking trends using a deterministic, multi-cohort model. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: The ICER for lung screening compared to usual care in the NELSON-based scenario was AU$39,250 (95% CI $18,150-108,300) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY); lower than the NLST-based estimate (ICER = $76,300, 95% CI $41,750-236,500). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, lung screening was cost-effective in 15%/60% of NELSON-like simulations, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $30,000/$50,000 per QALY, respectively, compared to 0.5%/6.7% for the NLST. ICERs were most sensitive to assumptions regarding the screening-related lung cancer mortality benefit and duration of benefit over time. The cost of screening had a larger impact on ICERs than the cost of treatment, even after quadrupling the 2006-2016 healthcare costs of stage IV lung cancer. DISCUSSION: Lung screening could be cost-effective in Australia, contingent on translating trial-like lung cancer mortality benefits to the clinic.

An International Consensus on Actions to Improve Lung Cancer Survival: A Modified Delphi Method Among Clinical Experts in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership.

BACKGROUND: Research from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) demonstrates that international variation in lung cancer survival persists, particularly within early stage disease. There is a lack of international consensus on the critical contributing components to variation in lung cancer outcomes and the steps needed to optimise lung cancer services. These are needed to improve the quality of options for and equitable access to treatment, and ultimately improve survival. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 9 key informants from ICBP countries. An international clinical network representing 6 ICBP countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, Ireland, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales) was established to share local clinical insights and examples of best practice. Using a modified Delphi consensus model, network members suggested and rated recommendations to optimise the management of lung cancer. Calls to Action were developed via Delphi voting as the most crucial recommendations, with Good Practice Points included to support their implementation. RESULTS: Five Calls to Action and thirteen Good Practice Points applicable to high income, comparable countries were developed and achieved 100% consensus. Calls to Action include (1) Implement cost-effective, clinically efficacious, and equitable lung cancer screening initiatives; (2) Ensure diagnosis of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; (3) Develop Thoracic Centres of Excellence; (4) Undertake an international audit of lung cancer care; and (5) Recognise improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes as a priority in cancer policy. CONCLUSION: The recommendations presented are the voice of an expert international lung cancer clinical network, and signpost key considerations for policymakers in countries within the ICBP but also in other comparable high-income countries. These define a roadmap to help align and focus efforts in improving outcomes and management of lung cancer patients globally.

Therapeutic Rigid Bronchoscopy Intervention for Malignant Central Airway Obstruction Improves Performance Status to Allow Systemic Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Malignant central airway obstruction may result in an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) that precludes treatment with systemic therapies. We sought to evaluate outcomes of patients undergoing rigid bronchoscopy for malignant central airways obstruction (MCAO) and its effect on access to systemic therapies including immunotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational single-center study evaluating 77 consecutive patients who underwent rigid bronchoscopy from March 2015 to November 2019. Procedural details, preprocedural and postprocedural ECOG PS, complications, and proportions of patients receiving systemic therapy postprocedure were recorded. RESULTS: The majority of patients were ECOG PS 2 to 3 at diagnosis (62%). The most common indication was MCAO due to squamous cell carcinoma (35.1%). MCAO was managed with a debulking/dilatation procedure alone (51.9%) or in combination with stenting (48.1%). The laser was unavailable, electrocautery was used for hemostasis only not tumor ablation. Significant improvement in ECOG PS postprocedure in the group with baseline ECOG PS 3 to 4 (P<0.0001) and in those with baseline ECOG PS 0 to 4 (P<0.00001) was observed. The main complication was bleeding, controlled bronchoscopically with mechanical compression with a rigid bronchoscope and/or electrocautery (68.8% of patients). No deaths occurred. Overall, 70% of those presenting with ECOG 3 to 4 went onto receive systemic therapies that would have been contraindicated due to poor baseline ECOG PS. CONCLUSION: Therapeutic rigid bronchoscopy is safe and efficacious in the management of MCAO, improving ECOG PS allowing for the administration of systemic therapies. This is especially important in the era of immunotherapy and directed therapies, which have been shown to provide significant survival benefit over conventional therapies alone.

USPSTF2013 versus PLCOm2012 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria (International Lung Screening Trial): interim analysis of a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is a major health problem. CT lung screening can reduce lung cancer mortality through early diagnosis by at least 20%. Screening high-risk individuals is most effective. Retrospective analyses suggest that identifying individuals for screening by accurate prediction models is more efficient than using categorical age-smoking criteria, such as the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. This study prospectively compared the effectiveness of the USPSTF2013 and PLCOm2012 model eligibility criteria. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, participants from the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST), aged 55-80 years, who were current or former smokers (ie, had ≥30 pack-years smoking history or ≤15 quit-years since last permanently quitting), and who met USPSTF2013 criteria or a PLCOm2012 risk threshold of at least 1·51% within 6 years of screening, were recruited from nine screening sites in Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, and the UK. After enrolment, patients were assessed with the USPSTF2013 criteria and the PLCOm2012 risk model with a threshold of at least 1·70% at 6 years. Data were collected locally and centralised. Main outcomes were the comparison of lung cancer detection rates and cumulative life expectancies in patients with lung cancer between USPSTF2013 criteria and the PLCOm2012 model. In this Article, we present data from an interim analysis. To estimate the incidence of lung cancers in individuals who were USPSTF2013-negative and had PLCOm2012 of less than 1·51% at 6 years, ever-smokers in the Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) who met these criteria and their lung cancer incidence were applied to the ILST sample size for the mean follow-up occurring in the ILST. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02871856. Study enrolment is almost complete. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2015, and Dec 29, 2020, 5819 participants from the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST) were enrolled on the basis of meeting USPSTF2013 criteria or the PLCOm2012 risk threshold of at least 1·51% at 6 years. The same number of individuals was selected for the PLCOm2012 model as for the USPSTF2013 criteria (4540 [78%] of 5819). After a mean follow-up of 2·3 years (SD 1·0), 135 lung cancers occurred in 4540 USPSTF2013-positive participants and 162 in 4540 participants included in the PLCOm2012 of at least 1·70% at 6 years group (cancer sensitivity difference 15·8%, 95% CI 10·7-22·1%; absolute odds ratio 4·00, 95% CI 1·89-9·44; p<0·0001). Compared to USPSTF2013-positive individuals, PLCOm2012-selected participants were older (mean age 65·7 years [SD 5·9] vs 63·3 years [5·7]; p<0·0001), had more comorbidities (median 2 [IQR 1-3] vs 1 [1-2]; p<0·0001), and shorter life expectancy (13·9 years [95% CI 12·8-14·9] vs 14·8 [13·6-16·0] years). Model-based difference in cumulative life expectancies for those diagnosed with lung cancer were higher in those who had PLCOm2012 risk of at least 1·70% at 6 years than individuals who were USPSTF2013-positive (2248·6 years [95% CI 2089·6-2425·9] vs 2000·7 years [1841·2-2160·3]; difference 247·9 years, p=0·015). INTERPRETATION: PLCOm2012 appears to be more efficient than the USPSTF2013 criteria for selecting individuals to enrol into lung cancer screening programmes and should be used for identifying high-risk individuals who benefit from the inclusion in these programmes. FUNDING: Terry Fox Research Institute, The UBC-VGH Hospital Foundation and the BC Cancer Foundation, the Alberta Cancer Foundation, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK and a consortium of funders, and the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation for the UK Lung Screen Uptake Trial.

Lung cancer screening implementation: Complexities and priorities.

Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death worldwide. The benefits of lung cancer screening to reduce mortality and detect early-stage disease are no longer in any doubt based on the results of two landmark trials using LDCT. Lung cancer screening has been implemented in the US and South Korea and is under consideration by other communities. Successful translation of demonstrated research outcomes into the routine clinical setting requires careful implementation and co-ordinated input from multiple stakeholders. Implementation aspects may be specific to different healthcare settings. Important knowledge gaps remain, which must be addressed in order to optimize screening benefits and minimize screening harms. Lung cancer screening differs from all other cancer screening programmes as lung cancer risk is driven by smoking, a highly stigmatized behaviour. Stigma, along with other factors, can impact smokers' engagement with screening, meaning that smokers are generally 'hard to reach'. This review considers critical points along the patient journey. The first steps include selecting a risk threshold at which to screen, successfully engaging the target population and maximizing screening uptake. We review barriers to smoker engagement in lung and other cancer screening programmes. Recruitment strategies used in trials and real-world (clinical) programmes and associated screening uptake are reviewed. To aid cross-study comparisons, we propose a standardized nomenclature for recording and calculating recruitment outcomes. Once participants have engaged with the screening programme, we discuss programme components that are critical to maximize net benefit. A whole-of-programme approach is required including a standardized and multidisciplinary approach to pulmonary nodule management, incorporating probabilistic nodule risk assessment and longitudinal volumetric analysis, to reduce unnecessary downstream investigations and surgery; the integration of smoking cessation; and identification and intervention for other tobacco related diseases, such as coronary artery calcification and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. National support, integrated with tobacco control programmes, and with appropriate funding, accreditation, data collection, quality assurance and reporting mechanisms will enhance lung cancer screening programme success and reduce the risks associated with opportunistic, ad hoc screening. Finally, implementation research must play a greater role in informing policy change about targeted LDCT screening programmes.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease prevalence and prediction in a high-risk lung cancer screening population.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an underdiagnosed condition sharing risk factors with lung cancer. Lung cancer screening may provide an opportunity to improve COPD diagnosis. Using Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer (PanCan) study data, the present study sought to determine the following: 1) What is the prevalence of COPD in a lung cancer screening population? 2) Can a model based on clinical and screening low-dose CT scan data predict the likelihood of COPD? METHODS: The single arm PanCan study recruited current or former smokers age 50-75 who had a calculated risk of lung cancer of at least 2% over 6 years. A baseline health questionnaire, spirometry, and low-dose CT scan were performed. CT scans were assessed by a radiologist for extent and distribution of emphysema. With spirometry as the gold standard, logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with COPD. RESULTS: Among 2514 recruited subjects, 1136 (45.2%) met spirometry criteria for COPD, including 833 of 1987 (41.9%) of those with no prior diagnosis, 53.8% of whom had moderate or worse disease. In a multivariate model, age, current smoking status, number of pack-years, presence of dyspnea, wheeze, participation in a high-risk occupation, and emphysema extent on LDCT were all statistically associated with COPD, while the overall model had poor discrimination (c-statistic = 0.627 (95% CI of 0.607 to 0.650). The lowest and the highest risk decile in the model predicted COPD risk of 27.4 and 65.3%. CONCLUSIONS: COPD had a high prevalence in a lung cancer screening population. While a risk model had poor discrimination, all deciles of risk had a high prevalence of COPD, and spirometry could be considered as an additional test in lung cancer screening programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00751660 , registered September 12, 2008).

Lung cancer reported as a benign lesion due to low-dose chest computed tomography artefact: A case report.

CT imaging for lung cancer screening requires low dose technique. Low dose CT chest imaging is associated with an increased risk of artefacts, such as increased noise. We present a case where an artefact from the low dose technique lead to a lung cancer being erroneously reported as a benign hamartoma.

Protocol and Rationale for the International Lung Screening Trial.

Rationale: The NLST (National Lung Screening Trial) reported a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomography screening; however, important questions on how to optimize screening remain, including which selection criteria are most accurate at detecting lung cancers and what nodule management protocol is most efficient. The PLCOm2012 (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian) Cancer Screening Trial 6-year and PanCan (Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer) nodule malignancy risk models are two of the better validated risk prediction models for screenee selection and nodule management, respectively. Combined use of these models for participant selection and nodule management could significantly improve screening efficiency.Objectives: The ILST (International Lung Screening Trial) is a prospective cohort study with two primary aims: 1) Compare the accuracy of the PLCOm2012 model against U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for detecting lung cancers and 2) evaluate nodule management efficiency using the PanCan nodule probability calculator-based protocol versus Lung-RADS.Methods: ILST will recruit 4,500 participants who meet USPSTF and/or PLCOm2012 risk ≥1.51%/6-year selection criteria. Participants will undergo baseline and 2-year low-dose computed tomography screening. Baseline nodules are managed according to PanCan probability score. Participants will be followed up for a minimum of 5 years. Primary outcomes for aim 1 are the proportion of individuals selected for screening, proportion of lung cancers detected, and positive predictive values of either selection criteria, and outcomes for aim 2 include comparing distributions of individuals and the proportion of lung cancers in each of three management groups: next surveillance scan, early recall scan, or diagnostic evaluation recommended. Statistical powers to detect differences in the four components of primary study aims were ≥82%.Conclusions: ILST will prospectively evaluate the comparative accuracy and effectiveness of two promising multivariable risk models for screenee selection and nodule management in lung cancer screening.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02871856).

The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Early Lung Imaging Confederation.

PURPOSE: To improve outcomes for lung cancer through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) early lung cancer detection. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer is developing the Early Lung Imaging Confederation (ELIC) to serve as an open-source, international, universally accessible environment to analyze large collections of quality-controlled LDCT images and associated biomedical data for research and routine screening care. METHODS: ELIC is an international confederation that allows access to efficiently analyze large numbers of high-quality computed tomography (CT) images with associated de-identified clinical information without moving primary imaging/clinical or imaging data from its local or regional site of origin. Rather, ELIC uses a cloud-based infrastructure to distribute analysis tools to the local site of the stored imaging and clinical data, thereby allowing for research and quality studies to proceed in a vendor-neutral, collaborative environment. ELIC's hub-and-spoke architecture will be deployed to permit analysis of CT images and associated data in a secure environment, without any requirement to reveal the data itself (ie, privacy protecting). Identifiable data remain under local control, so the resulting environment complies with national regulations and mitigates against privacy or data disclosure risk. RESULTS: The goal of pilot experiments is to connect image collections of LDCT scans that can be accurately analyzed in a fashion to support a global network using methodologies that can be readily scaled to accrued databases of sufficient size to develop and validate robust quantitative imaging tools. CONCLUSION: This initiative can rapidly accelerate improvements to the multidisciplinary management of early, curable lung cancer and other major thoracic diseases (eg, coronary artery disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) visualized on a screening LDCT scan. The addition of a facile, quantitative CT scanner image quality conformance process is a unique step toward improving the reliability of clinical decision support with CT screening worldwide.

Development and evaluation of a consumer information resource, including Patient Decision Aid, for lung cancer screening: a quasi-experimental study.

Lung cancer screening of high-risk individuals with computed tomography is a promising intervention to reduce lung cancer mortality. Patient Decision Aids (PtDAs) may assist eligible individuals assess the risks and benefits associated with screening. Screening preference is high among lower-risk, screening-ineligible individuals and strategies are needed to reduce screening demand among this group. We developed and evaluated a resource comprising a recruitment pamphlet combined with either a PtDA for screening-eligible individuals or an education pamphlet for screening-ineligible individuals. Quasi-experimental pre-post pamphlet exposure design. Ever-smokers aged 55-80 years attending hospital outpatient clinics were invited. Among screening-eligible participants, the assessed outcome was change in score on the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Among screening-ineligible participants, the assessed outcomes were change in screening preference. In the study 51% (55/107) of invited individuals participated, with mean ± standard deviation age 66.9 ± 6.4 years, 53% (29/55) male, and 65% (36/55) eligible for screening. Median (interquartile range) DCS among screening-eligible participants reduced from 28.9 (22.7-45.3) pre-PtDA to 25 (1.6-29.7) post-PtDA (p < .001), but there was no significant change in the proportion that reached the accepted threshold for decisional certainty (DCS < 25, 10/36 [28%] pre-exposure vs. 14/36 [39%] post-exposure, p = .1). Screening preference among screening-ineligible individuals reduced after viewing the screening-ineligible brochure (pre-exposure median of "Prefer" to post-exposure median of "Unsure," p = .001). Our consumer information pamphlets about lung cancer screening may reduce decisional conflict and improve alignment of screening preference with eligibility.

Health-related quality of life and anxiety in the PAN-CAN lung cancer screening cohort.

OBJECTIVES: The impact of lung cancer screening with low-dose chest CT (LDCT) on participants' anxiety levels and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important consideration in the implementation of such programmes. We aimed to describe changes in anxiety and HRQoL in a high-risk Canadian cohort undergoing LDCT lung cancer screening. METHODS: 2537 subjects who had 2% or greater lung cancer risk over 6 years using a risk prediction tool were recruited from eight centres across Canada in the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study (2008-2010). We compared HRQoL and anxiety levels before and after screening of 1237 participants with LDCT (excluding a subset of 1300 participants who also underwent autofluorescence bronchoscopy screening), as well as after investigations performed because of a positive screening examination. The 12-item short-form Physical and Mental Component Scales (SF-12), EQ-5D-3L scores and State Trait Anxiety Inventory-State anxiety were used at each assessment. RESULTS: Overall, there were no clinically significant differences in HRQoL outcomes between baseline and each of the survey time points following initial screening. No mean change in anxiety in the overall cohort was noted following baseline LDCT, but more participants had clinically significant increase in anxiety versus decrease after baseline screening (increase >minimal clinically important difference (MCID) (n=180) vs decrease >MCID (n=50), p<0.001). This finding persisted but to a lesser degree at the 12 month time point (increase >MCID (n=146) vs decrease >MCID (n=87), p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CT screening for lung cancer has no major overall impact on HRQoL among participants, although a minority of participants (number-needed-to-harm=7 after baseline screening and 18 at 1 year) demonstrated clinically significant increased anxiety levels. TRIALREGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00751660; Results.

Predicting Malignancy Risk of Screen-Detected Lung Nodules-Mean Diameter or Volume.

OBJECTIVE: In lung cancer screening practice low-dose computed tomography, diameter, and volumetric measurement have been used in the management of screen-detected lung nodules. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of nodule malignancy risk prediction tools using diameter or volume and between computer-aided detection (CAD) and radiologist measurements. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression models were prepared by using data from two multicenter lung cancer screening trials. For model development and validation, baseline low-dose computed tomography scans from the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study and a subset of National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) scans with lung nodules 3 mm or more in mean diameter were analyzed by using the CIRRUS Lung Screening Workstation (Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands). In the NLST sample, nodules with cancer had been matched on the basis of size to nodules without cancer. RESULTS: Both CAD-based mean diameter and volume models showed excellent discrimination and calibration, with similar areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.947. The two CAD models had predictive performance similar to that of the radiologist-based model. In the NLST validation data, the CAD mean diameter and volume models also demonstrated excellent discrimination: areas under the curve of 0.810 and 0.821, respectively. These performance statistics are similar to those of the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study malignancy probability model with use of these data and radiologist-measured maximum diameter. CONCLUSION: Either CAD-based nodule diameter or volume can be used to assist in predicting a nodule's malignancy risk.