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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Future of Lung Cancer Screening: Current Challenges and Research Priorities.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, primarily because most people present when the stage is too advanced to offer any reasonable chance of cure. Over the last two decades, evidence has accumulated to show that early detection of lung cancer, using low-radiation dose computed tomography, in people at higher risk of the condition reduces their mortality. Many countries are now making progress with implementing programmes, although some have concerns about cost-effectiveness. Lung cancer screening is complex, and many factors influence clinical and cost-effectiveness. It is important to develop strategies to optimise each element of the intervention from selection and participation through optimal scanning, management of findings and treatment. The overall aim is to maximise benefits and minimise harms. Additional integrated interventions must include at least smoking cessation. In this review, we summarize the evidence that has accumulated to guide optimisation of lung cancer screening, discuss the remaining open questions about the best approach and identify potential barriers to successful implementation.

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.

What is the Definition of Cure in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer?

The concept of cure from cancer is important to patients, but can be difficult to communicate in terms that are meaningful. This is because there are a number of definitions of cure that are applied by clinicians, patients and the public, and by policymakers that have a different meaning and significance. In this article, we provide a narrative review of the evidence concerning cure in lung cancer and show how the different definitions may apply in different settings. A better understanding of the various concepts of cure will improve communication with patients on this important topic. This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Place of Death in Patients with Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study from 2004-2013.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with cancer die in an acute hospital bed, which has been frequently identified as the least preferred location, with psychological and financial implications. This study looks at place and cause of death in patients with lung cancer and identifies which factors are associated with dying in an acute hospital bed versus at home. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used the National Lung Cancer Audit linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics data to determine cause and place of death in those with lung cancer; both overall and by cancer Network. We used multivariate logistic regression to compare features of those who died in an acute hospital versus those who died at home. RESULTS: Of 143627 patients identified 40% (57678) died in an acute hospital, 29% (41957) died at home and 17% (24108) died in a hospice. Individual factors associated with death in an acute hospital bed compared to home were male sex, increasing age, poor performance status, social deprivation and diagnosis via an emergency route. There was marked variation between cancer Networks in place of death. The proportion of patients dying in an acute hospital ranged from 28% to 48%, with variation most notable in provision of hospice care (9% versus 33%). Cause of death in the majority was lung cancer (86%), with other malignancies, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and ischaemic heart disease (IHD) comprising 9% collectively. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of patients with lung cancer die in acute hospital beds and this is more likely with increasing age, male sex, social deprivation and in those with poor performance status. There is marked variation between Networks, suggesting a need to improve end-of-life planning in those at greatest risk, and to review the allocation of resources to provide more hospice beds, enhanced community support and ensure equal access.

Predicting death from surgery for lung cancer: A comparison of two scoring systems in two European countries.

OBJECTIVES: Current British guidelines advocate the use of risk prediction scores such as Thoracoscore to estimate mortality prior to radical surgery for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A recent publication used the National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) to produce a score to predict 90 day mortality (NLCA score). The aim of this study is to validate the NLCA score, and compare its performance with Thoracoscore. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed an internal validation using 2858 surgical patients from NLCA and an external validation using 3191 surgical patients from the Danish Lung Cancer Registry (DLCR). We calculated the proportion that died within 90 days of surgery. The discriminatory power of both scores was assessed by a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and an area under the curve (AUC) calculation. RESULTS: Ninety day mortality was 5% in both groups. AUC values for internal and external validation of NLCA score and validation of Thoracoscore were 0.68 (95% CI 0.63-0.72), 0.60 (95% CI 0.56-0.65) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.54-0.66) respectively. Post-hoc analysis was performed using NLCA records on 15554 surgical patients to derive summary tables for 30 and 90 day mortality, stratified by procedure type, age and performance status. CONCLUSIONS: Neither score performs well enough to be advocated for individual risk stratification prior to lung cancer surgery. It may be that additional physiological parameters are required; however this is a further project. In the interim we propose the use of our summary tables that provide the real-life range of mortality for lobectomy and pneumonectomy.

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.

Brain metastases following radical surgical treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: is preoperative brain imaging important?

OBJECTIVES: There is a lack of good quality evidence or a clear consensus of opinion internationally regarding who should receive preoperative imaging of the brain prior to radical treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to establish the proportion of patients who developed brain metastases following curative surgery and to estimate how many could have been detected by preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MR). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 646 patients who underwent surgery for lung cancer with curative intent at a regional thoracic surgical centre in the United Kingdom. We identified those who developed brain metastases in the postoperative period and, by using volume doubling times, estimated the size of the metastasis at the time of surgery. We then determined the proportion of metastases that would have been seen on preoperative MR brain at detection thresholds of 2 and 5mm diameter. RESULTS: There was a 6.3% incidence of postoperative brain metastases, with the majority occurring within 12 months of surgery. Those who developed metastases were more likely to have adenocarcinoma and the majority had early stage malignancy (73% stage I or stage II). We estimate that 71% of those who developed cerebral metastases might have been detected had they undergone MR brain as part of their staging (4.4% of all patients). CONCLUSION: Based on our findings we suggest that, in addition to standard staging investigations, patients have brain imaging (MR or equivalent) prior to curative surgery in NSCLC regardless of preoperative stage.

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.