Cost-effectiveness of risk-based low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer in Switzerland.

Throughout Europe, computed tomography (CT) screening for lung cancer is in a phase of clinical implementation or reimbursement evaluation. To efficiently select individuals for screening, the use of lung cancer risk models has been suggested, but their incremental (cost-)effectiveness relative to eligibility based on pack-year criteria has not been thoroughly evaluated for a European setting. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pack-year and risk-based screening (PLCOm2012 model-based) strategies for Switzerland, which aided in informing the recommendations of the Swiss Cancer Screening Committee (CSC). We use the MISCAN (MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis)-Lung model to estimate benefits and harms of screening among individuals born 1940 to 1979 in Switzerland. We evaluate 1512 strategies, differing in the age ranges employed for screening, the screening interval and the strictness of the smoking requirements. We estimate risk-based strategies to be more cost-effective than pack-year-based screening strategies. The most efficient strategy compliant with CSC recommendations is biennial screening for ever-smokers aged 55 to 80 with a 1.6% PLCOm2012 risk. Relative to no screening this strategy is estimated to reduce lung cancer mortality by 11.0%, with estimated costs per Quality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY) gained of €19 341, and a €1.990 billion 15-year budget impact. Biennial screening ages 55 to 80 for those with 20 pack-years shows a lower mortality reduction (10.5%) and higher cost per QALY gained (€20 869). Despite model uncertainties, our estimates suggest there may be cost-effective screening policies for Switzerland. Risk-based biennial screening ages 55 to 80 for those with ≥1.6% PLCOm2012 risk conforms to CSC recommendations and is estimated to be more efficient than pack-year-based alternatives.

Assessing the impact of increasing lung screening eligibility by relaxing the maximum years-since-quit threshold: A simulation modeling study.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force expanded its lung screening recommendation to include persons aged 50-80 years who had ever smoked and had at least 20 pack-years of exposure and less than 15 years since quitting (YSQ). However, studies have suggested that screening persons who formerly smoked with longer YSQ could be beneficial. METHODS: The authors used two validated lung cancer models to assess the benefits and harms of screening using various YSQ thresholds (10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and no YSQ) and the age at which screening was stopped. The impact of enforcing the YSQ criterion only at entry, but not at exit, also was evaluated. Outcomes included the number of screens, the percentage ever screened, screening benefits (lung cancer deaths averted, life-years gained), and harms (false-positive tests, overdiagnosed cases, radiation-induced lung cancer deaths). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the effect of restricting screening to those who had at least 5 years of life expectancy. RESULTS: As the YSQ criterion was relaxed, the number of screens and the benefits and harms of screening increased. Raising the age at which to stop screening age resulted in additional benefits but with more overdiagnosis, as expected, because screening among those older than 80 years increased. Limiting screening to those who had at least 5 years of life expectancy would maintain most of the benefits while considerably reducing the harms. CONCLUSIONS: Expanding screening to persons who formerly smoked and have greater than 15 YSQ would result in considerable increases in deaths averted and life-years gained. Although additional harms would occur, these could be moderated by ensuring that screening is restricted to only those with reasonable life expectancy.

Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In their 2021 lung cancer screening recommendation update, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) evaluated strategies that select people based on their personal lung cancer risk (risk model-based strategies), highlighting the need for further research on the benefits and harms of risk model-based screening. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of risk model-based lung cancer screening strategies versus the USPSTF recommendation and to explore optimal risk thresholds. DESIGN: Comparative modeling analysis. DATA SOURCES: National Lung Screening Trial; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; U.S. Smoking History Generator. TARGET POPULATION: 1960 U.S. birth cohort. TIME HORIZON: 45 years. PERSPECTIVE: U.S. health care sector. INTERVENTION: Annual low-dose computed tomography in risk model-based strategies that start screening at age 50 or 55 years, stop screening at age 80 years, with 6-year risk thresholds between 0.5% and 2.2% using the PLCOm2012 model. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier connecting strategies with the highest health benefit at a given cost. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Risk model-based screening strategies were more cost-effective than the USPSTF recommendation and exclusively comprised the cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier. Among the strategies on the efficiency frontier, those with a 6-year risk threshold of 1.2% or greater were cost-effective with an ICER less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Specifically, the strategy with a 1.2% risk threshold had an ICER of $94 659 (model range, $72 639 to $156 774), yielding more QALYs for less cost than the USPSTF recommendation, while having a similar level of screening coverage (person ever-screened 21.7% vs. USPSTF's 22.6%). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES: Risk model-based strategies were robustly more cost-effective than the 2021 USPSTF recommendation under varying modeling assumptions. LIMITATION: Risk models were restricted to age, sex, and smoking-related risk predictors. CONCLUSION: Risk model-based screening is more cost-effective than the USPSTF recommendation, thus warranting further consideration. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute (NCI).

Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Volume CT Screening in a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data from randomized trials regarding whether volume-based, low-dose computed tomographic (CT) screening can reduce lung-cancer mortality among male former and current smokers. METHODS: A total of 13,195 men (primary analysis) and 2594 women (subgroup analyses) between the ages of 50 and 74 were randomly assigned to undergo CT screening at T0 (baseline), year 1, year 3, and year 5.5 or no screening. We obtained data on cancer diagnosis and the date and cause of death through linkages with national registries in the Netherlands and Belgium, and a review committee confirmed lung cancer as the cause of death when possible. A minimum follow-up of 10 years until December 31, 2015, was completed for all participants. RESULTS: Among men, the average adherence to CT screening was 90.0%. On average, 9.2% of the screened participants underwent at least one additional CT scan (initially indeterminate). The overall referral rate for suspicious nodules was 2.1%. At 10 years of follow-up, the incidence of lung cancer was 5.58 cases per 1000 person-years in the screening group and 4.91 cases per 1000 person-years in the control group; lung-cancer mortality was 2.50 deaths per 1000 person-years and 3.30 deaths per 1000 person-years, respectively. The cumulative rate ratio for death from lung cancer at 10 years was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.94; P = 0.01) in the screening group as compared with the control group, similar to the values at years 8 and 9. Among women, the rate ratio was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.38 to 1.14) at 10 years of follow-up, with values of 0.41 to 0.52 in years 7 through 9. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving high-risk persons, lung-cancer mortality was significantly lower among those who underwent volume CT screening than among those who underwent no screening. There were low rates of follow-up procedures for results suggestive of lung cancer. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization of Health Research and Development and others; NELSON Netherlands Trial Register number, NL580.).

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.

Personalising lung cancer screening: An overview of risk-stratification opportunities and challenges.

Randomised clinical trials have shown the efficacy of computed tomography lung cancer screening, initiating discussions on whether and how to implement population-based screening programs. Due to smoking behaviour being the primary risk-factor for lung cancer and part of the criteria for determining screening eligibility, lung cancer screening is inherently risk-based. In fact, the selection of high-risk individuals has been shown to be essential in implementing lung cancer screening in a cost-effective manner. Furthermore, studies have shown that further risk-stratification may improve screening efficiency, allow personalisation of the screening interval and reduce health disparities. However, implementing risk-based lung cancer screening programs also requires overcoming a number of challenges. There are indications that risk-based approaches can negatively influence the trade-off between individual benefits and harms if not applied thoughtfully. Large-scale implementation of targeted, risk-based screening programs has been limited thus far. Consequently, questions remain on how to efficiently identify and invite high-risk individuals from the general population. Finally, while risk-based approaches may increase screening program efficiency, efficiency should be balanced with the overall impact of the screening program. In this review, we will address the opportunities and challenges in applying risk-stratification in different aspects of lung cancer screening programs, as well as the balance between screening program efficiency and impact.

Evaluation of the Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2013 lung cancer screening guidelines, which recommend annual screening for adults aged 55 through 80 years who have a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Objective: To inform the USPSTF guidelines by estimating the benefits and harms associated with various low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening strategies. Design, Setting, and Participants: Comparative simulation modeling with 4 lung cancer natural history models for individuals from the 1950 and 1960 US birth cohorts who were followed up from aged 45 through 90 years. Exposures: Screening with varying starting ages, stopping ages, and screening frequency. Eligibility criteria based on age, cumulative pack-years, and years since quitting smoking (risk factor-based) or on age and individual lung cancer risk estimation using risk prediction models with varying eligibility thresholds (risk model-based). A total of 1092 LDCT screening strategies were modeled. Full uptake and adherence were assumed for all scenarios. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained (benefits) compared with no screening. Estimated lifetime number of LDCT screenings, false-positive results, biopsies, overdiagnosed cases, and radiation-related lung cancer deaths (harms). Results: Efficient screening programs estimated to yield the most benefits for a given number of screenings were identified. Most of the efficient risk factor-based strategies started screening at aged 50 or 55 years and stopped at aged 80 years. The 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria were not among the efficient strategies for the 1960 US birth cohort. Annual strategies with a minimum criterion of 20 pack-years of smoking were efficient and, compared with the 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria, were estimated to increase screening eligibility (20.6%-23.6% vs 14.1% of the population ever eligible), lung cancer deaths averted (469-558 per 100 000 vs 381 per 100 000), and life-years gained (6018-7596 per 100 000 vs 4882 per 100 000). However, these strategies were estimated to result in more false-positive test results (1.9-2.5 per person screened vs 1.9 per person screened with the USPSTF strategy), overdiagnosed lung cancer cases (83-94 per 100 000 vs 69 per 100 000), and radiation-related lung cancer deaths (29.0-42.5 per 100 000 vs 20.6 per 100 000). Risk model-based vs risk factor-based strategies were estimated to be associated with more benefits and fewer radiation-related deaths but more overdiagnosed cases. Conclusions and Relevance: Microsimulation modeling studies suggested that LDCT screening for lung cancer compared with no screening may increase lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained when optimally targeted and implemented. Screening individuals at aged 50 or 55 years through aged 80 years with 20 pack-years or more of smoking exposure was estimated to result in more benefits than the 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria and less disparity in screening eligibility by sex and race/ethnicity.

Correction: Risk prediction models for selection of lung cancer screening candidates: A retrospective validation study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002277.].

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening in the United States: A Comparative Modeling Study.

Background: Recommendations vary regarding the maximum age at which to stop lung cancer screening: 80 years according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), 77 years according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and 74 years according to the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of different stopping ages for lung cancer screening. Design: By using shared inputs for smoking behavior, costs, and quality of life, 4 independently developed microsimulation models evaluated the health and cost outcomes of annual lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). Data Sources: The NLST; Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial; SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program; Nurses' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study; and U.S. Smoking History Generator. Target Population: Current, former, and never-smokers aged 45 years from the 1960 U.S. birth cohort. Time Horizon: 45 years. Perspective: Health care sector. Intervention: Annual LDCT according to NLST, CMS, and USPSTF criteria. Outcome Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results of Base-Case Analysis: The 4 models showed that the NLST, CMS, and USPSTF screening strategies were cost-effective, with ICERs averaging $49 200, $68 600, and $96 700 per QALY, respectively. Increasing the age at which to stop screening resulted in a greater reduction in mortality but also led to higher costs and overdiagnosis rates. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the NLST and CMS strategies had higher probabilities of being cost-effective (98% and 77%, respectively) than the USPSTF strategy (52%). Limitation: Scenarios assumed 100% screening adherence, and models extrapolated beyond clinical trial data. Conclusion: All 3 sets of lung cancer screening criteria represent cost-effective programs. Despite underlying uncertainty, the NLST and CMS screening strategies have high probabilities of being cost-effective. Primary Funding Source: CISNET (Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network) Lung Group, National Cancer Institute.

Treatment capacity required for full-scale implementation of lung cancer screening in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Full-scale implementation of lung cancer screening in the United States will increase detection of early stages. This study was aimed at assessing the capacity required for treating those cancers. METHODS: A well-established microsimulation model was extended with treatment data from the National Cancer Database. We assessed how treatment demand would change when implementing lung cancer screening in 2018. Three policies were assessed: 1) annual screening of current smokers and former smokers who quit fewer than 15 years ago, aged 55 to 80 years, with a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years (US Preventive Services Task Force [USPSTF] recommendations); 2) annual screening of current smokers and former smokers who quit fewer than 15 years ago, aged 55 to 77 years, with a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services [CMS] recommendations); and 3) annual screening of current smokers and former smokers who quit fewer than 10 years ago, aged 55 to 75 years, with a smoking history of at least 40 pack-years (the most cost-effective policy in Ontario [Ontario]). The base-case screening adherence was a constant 50%. Sensitivity analyses assessed other adherence levels, including a linear buildup to 50% between 2018 and 2027. RESULTS: The USPSTF policy would require 37.0% more lung cancer surgeries in 2015-2040 than no screening, 2.2% less radiotherapy, and 5.4% less chemotherapy; 5.7% more patients would require any therapy. The increase in surgical demand would be 96.1% in 2018, 46.0% in 2023, 38.3% in 2028, and 24.9% in 2040. Adherence strongly influenced results. By 2018, surgical demand would range from 52,619 (20% adherence) to 96,121 (80%). With a gradual buildup of adherence, the increase in surgical demand would be 9.6% in 2018, 38.3% in 2023, 42.0% in 2028, and 24.4% in 2040. Results for the CMS and Ontario policies were similar, although the changes in comparison with no screening were smaller. CONCLUSIONS: Full-scale implementation of lung cancer screening causes a major increase in surgical demand, with a peak within the first 5 years. A gradual buildup of adherence can spread this peak over time. Careful surgical capacity planning is essential for successfully implementing screening.

Persisting new nodules in incidence rounds of the NELSON CT lung cancer screening study.

BACKGROUND: The US guidelines recommend low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening for high-risk individuals. New solid nodules after baseline screening are common and have a high lung cancer probability. Currently, no evidence exists concerning the risk stratification of non-resolving new solid nodules at first LDCT screening after initial detection. METHODS: In the Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening (NELSON) trial, 7295 participants underwent the second and 6922 participants the third screening round. We included participants with solid nodules that were registered as new or <15 mm³ (study detection limit) at previous screens and received additional screening after initial detection, thereby excluding high-risk nodules according to the NELSON management protocol (nodules ≥500 mm3). RESULTS: Overall, 680 participants with 1020 low-risk and intermediate-risk new solid nodules were included. A total of 562 (55%) new solid nodules were resolving, leaving 356 (52%) participants with a non-resolving new solid nodule, of whom 25 (7%) were diagnosed with lung cancer. At first screening after initial detection, volume doubling time (VDT), volume, and VDT combined with a predefined ≥200 mm3 volume cut-off had high discrimination for lung cancer (VDT, area under the curve (AUC): 0.913; volume, AUC: 0.875; VDT and ≥200 mm3 combination, AUC: 0.939). Classifying a new solid nodule with either ≤590 days VDT or ≥200 mm3 volume positive provided 100% sensitivity, 84% specificity and 27% positive predictive value for lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of new low-risk and intermediate-risk solid nodules in LDCT lung cancer screening resolve. At follow-up, growth assessment potentially combined with a volume limit can be used for risk stratification. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN63545820; pre-results.

The impact of overdiagnosis on the selection of efficient lung cancer screening strategies.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently updated their national lung screening guidelines and recommended low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer (LC) screening through age 80. However, the risk of overdiagnosis among older populations is a concern. Using four comparative models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, we evaluate the overdiagnosis of the screening program recommended by USPSTF in the U.S. 1950 birth cohort. We estimate the number of LC deaths averted by screening (D) per overdiagnosed case (O), yielding the ratio D/O, to quantify the trade-off between the harms and benefits of LDCT. We analyze 576 hypothetical screening strategies that vary by age, smoking, and screening frequency and evaluate efficient screening strategies that maximize the D/O ratio and other metrics including D and life-years gained (LYG) per overdiagnosed case. The estimated D/O ratio for the USPSTF screening program is 2.85 (model range: 1.5-4.5) in the 1950 birth cohort, implying LDCT can prevent ∼3 LC deaths per overdiagnosed case. This D/O ratio increases by 22% when the program stops screening at an earlier age 75 instead of 80. Efficiency frontier analysis shows that while the most efficient screening strategies that maximize the mortality reduction (D) irrespective of overdiagnosis screen through age 80, screening strategies that stop at age 75 versus 80 produce greater efficiency in increasing life-years gained per overdiagnosed case. Given the risk of overdiagnosis with LC screening, the stopping age of screening merits further consideration when balancing benefits and harms.

Performance and Cost-Effectiveness of Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening Scenarios in a Population-Based Setting: A Microsimulation Modeling Analysis in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) results indicate that computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening for current and former smokers with three annual screens can be cost-effective in a trial setting. However, the cost-effectiveness in a population-based setting with >3 screening rounds is uncertain. Therefore, the objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening in a population-based setting in Ontario, Canada, and evaluate the effects of screening eligibility criteria. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This study used microsimulation modeling informed by various data sources, including the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP), Ontario Cancer Registry, smoking behavior surveys, and the NLST. Persons, born between 1940 and 1969, were examined from a third-party health care payer perspective across a lifetime horizon. Starting in 2015, 576 CT screening scenarios were examined, varying by age to start and end screening, smoking eligibility criteria, and screening interval. Among the examined outcome measures were lung cancer deaths averted, life-years gained, percentage ever screened, costs (in 2015 Canadian dollars), and overdiagnosis. The results of the base-case analysis indicated that annual screening was more cost-effective than biennial screening. Scenarios with eligibility criteria that required as few as 20 pack-years were dominated by scenarios that required higher numbers of accumulated pack-years. In general, scenarios that applied stringent smoking eligibility criteria (i.e., requiring higher levels of accumulated smoking exposure) were more cost-effective than scenarios with less stringent smoking eligibility criteria, with modest differences in life-years gained. Annual screening between ages 55-75 for persons who smoked ≥40 pack-years and who currently smoke or quit ≤10 y ago yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $41,136 Canadian dollars ($33,825 in May 1, 2015, United States dollars) per life-year gained (compared to annual screening between ages 60-75 for persons who smoked ≥40 pack-years and who currently smoke or quit ≤10 y ago), which was considered optimal at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000 Canadian dollars ($41,114 May 1, 2015, US dollars). If 50% lower or higher attributable costs were assumed, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of this scenario was estimated to be $38,240 ($31,444 May 1, 2015, US dollars) or $48,525 ($39,901 May 1, 2015, US dollars), respectively. If 50% lower or higher costs for CT examinations were assumed, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of this scenario was estimated to be $28,630 ($23,542 May 1, 2015, US dollars) or $73,507 ($60,443 May 1, 2015, US dollars), respectively. This scenario would screen 9.56% (499,261 individuals) of the total population (ever- and never-smokers) at least once, which would require 4,788,523 CT examinations, and reduce lung cancer mortality in the total population by 9.05% (preventing 13,108 lung cancer deaths), while 12.53% of screen-detected cancers would be overdiagnosed (4,282 overdiagnosed cases). Sensitivity analyses indicated that the overall results were most sensitive to variations in CT examination costs. Quality of life was not incorporated in the analyses, and assumptions for follow-up procedures were based on data from the NLST, which may not be generalizable to a population-based setting. CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer screening with stringent smoking eligibility criteria can be cost-effective in a population-based setting.

Risk prediction models for selection of lung cancer screening candidates: A retrospective validation study.

BACKGROUND: Selection of candidates for lung cancer screening based on individual risk has been proposed as an alternative to criteria based on age and cumulative smoking exposure (pack-years). Nine previously established risk models were assessed for their ability to identify those most likely to develop or die from lung cancer. All models considered age and various aspects of smoking exposure (smoking status, smoking duration, cigarettes per day, pack-years smoked, time since smoking cessation) as risk predictors. In addition, some models considered factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, education, body mass index, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, personal history of cancer, personal history of pneumonia, and family history of lung cancer. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Retrospective analyses were performed on 53,452 National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants (1,925 lung cancer cases and 884 lung cancer deaths) and 80,672 Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) ever-smoking participants (1,463 lung cancer cases and 915 lung cancer deaths). Six-year lung cancer incidence and mortality risk predictions were assessed for (1) calibration (graphically) by comparing the agreement between the predicted and the observed risks, (2) discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]) between individuals with and without lung cancer (death), and (3) clinical usefulness (net benefit in decision curve analysis) by identifying risk thresholds at which applying risk-based eligibility would improve lung cancer screening efficacy. To further assess performance, risk model sensitivities and specificities in the PLCO were compared to those based on the NLST eligibility criteria. Calibration was satisfactory, but discrimination ranged widely (AUCs from 0.61 to 0.81). The models outperformed the NLST eligibility criteria over a substantial range of risk thresholds in decision curve analysis, with a higher sensitivity for all models and a slightly higher specificity for some models. The PLCOm2012, Bach, and Two-Stage Clonal Expansion incidence models had the best overall performance, with AUCs >0.68 in the NLST and >0.77 in the PLCO. These three models had the highest sensitivity and specificity for predicting 6-y lung cancer incidence in the PLCO chest radiography arm, with sensitivities >79.8% and specificities >62.3%. In contrast, the NLST eligibility criteria yielded a sensitivity of 71.4% and a specificity of 62.2%. Limitations of this study include the lack of identification of optimal risk thresholds, as this requires additional information on the long-term benefits (e.g., life-years gained and mortality reduction) and harms (e.g., overdiagnosis) of risk-based screening strategies using these models. In addition, information on some predictor variables included in the risk prediction models was not available. CONCLUSIONS: Selection of individuals for lung cancer screening using individual risk is superior to selection criteria based on age and pack-years alone. The benefits, harms, and feasibility of implementing lung cancer screening policies based on risk prediction models should be assessed and compared with those of current recommendations.

Final screening round of the NELSON lung cancer screening trial: the effect of a 2.5-year screening interval.

BACKGROUND: In the USA annual lung cancer screening is recommended. However, the optimal screening strategy (eg, screening interval, screening rounds) is unknown. This study provides results of the fourth screening round after a 2.5-year interval in the Dutch-Belgian Lung Cancer Screening trial (NELSON). METHODS: Europe's largest, sufficiently powered randomised lung cancer screening trial was designed to determine whether low-dose CT screening reduces lung cancer mortality by ≥25% compared with no screening after 10 years of follow-up. The screening arm (n=7915) received screening at baseline, after 1 year, 2 years and 2.5 years. Performance of the NELSON screening strategy in the final fourth round was evaluated. Comparisons were made between lung cancers detected in the first three rounds, in the final round and during the 2.5-year interval. RESULTS: In round 4, 46 cancers were screen-detected and there were 28 interval cancers between the third and fourth screenings. Compared with the second round screening (1-year interval), in round 4 a higher proportion of stage IIIb/IV cancers (17.3% vs 6.8%, p=0.02) and higher proportions of squamous-cell, bronchoalveolar and small-cell carcinomas (p=0.001) were detected. Compared with a 2-year interval, the 2.5-year interval showed a higher non-significant stage distribution (stage IIIb/IV 17.3% vs 5.2%, p=0.10). Additionally, more interval cancers manifested in the 2.5-year interval than in the intervals of previous rounds (28 vs 5 and 28 vs 19). CONCLUSIONS: A 2.5-year interval reduced the effect of screening: the interval cancer rate was higher compared with the 1-year and 2-year intervals, and proportion of advanced disease stage in the final round was higher compared with the previous rounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN63545820.

Risk stratification based on screening history: the NELSON lung cancer screening study.

BACKGROUND: Debate about the optimal lung cancer screening strategy is ongoing. In this study, previous screening history of the Dutch-Belgian Lung Cancer Screening trial (NELSON) is investigated on if it predicts the screening outcome (test result and lung cancer risk) of the final screening round. METHODS: 15 792 participants were randomised (1:1) of which 7900 randomised into a screening group. CT screening took place at baseline, and after 1, 2 and 2.5 years. Initially, three screening outcomes were possible: negative, indeterminate or positive scan result. Probability for screening outcome in the fourth round was calculated for subgroups of participants. RESULTS: Based on results of the first three rounds, three subgroups were identified: (1) those with exclusively negative results (n=3856; 73.0%); (2) those with ≥1 indeterminate result, but never a positive result (n=1342; 25.5%); and (3) with ≥1 positive result (n=81; 1.5%). Group 1 had the highest probability for having a negative scan result in round 4 (97.2% vs 94.8% and 90.1%, respectively, p<0.001), and the lowest risk for detecting lung cancer in round 4 (0.6% vs 1.6%, p=0.001). 'Smoked pack-years' and 'screening history' significantly predicted the fourth round test result. The third round results implied that the risk for detecting lung cancer (after an interval of 2.5 years) was 0.6% for those with negative results compared with 3.7% of those with indeterminate results. CONCLUSIONS: Previous CT lung cancer screening results provides an opportunity for further risk stratifications of those who undergo lung cancer screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Results, ISRCTN63545820.

Occurrence and lung cancer probability of new solid nodules at incidence screening with low-dose CT: analysis of data from the randomised, controlled NELSON trial.

BACKGROUND: US guidelines now recommend lung cancer screening with low-dose CT for high-risk individuals. Reports of new nodules after baseline screening have been scarce and are inconsistent because of differences in definitions used. We aimed to identify the occurrence of new solid nodules and their probability of being lung cancer at incidence screening rounds in the Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NELSON). METHODS: In the ongoing, multicentre, randomised controlled NELSON trial, between Dec 23, 2003, and July 6, 2006, 15 822 participants who had smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day for more than 25 years or ten cigarettes a day for more than 30 years and were current smokers, or had quit smoking less than 10 years ago, were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either screening with low-dose CT (n=7915) or no screening (n=7907). From Jan 28, 2004, to Dec 18, 2006, 7557 individuals underwent baseline screening with low-dose CT; 7295 participants underwent second and third screening rounds. We included all participants with solid non-calcified nodules, registered by the NELSON radiologists as new or smaller than 15 mm(3) (study detection limit) at previous screens. Nodule volume was generated semiautomatically by software. We calculated the maximum volume doubling time for nodules with an estimated percentage volume change of 25% or more, representing the minimum growth rate for the time since the previous scan. Lung cancer diagnosis was based on histology, and benignity was based on histology or stable size for at least 2 years. The NELSON trial is registered at trialregister.nl, number ISRCTN63545820. FINDINGS: We analysed data for participants with at least one solid non-calcified nodule at the second or third screening round. In the two incidence screening rounds, the NELSON radiologists registered 1222 new solid nodules in 787 (11%) participants. A new solid nodule was lung cancer in 49 (6%) participants with new solid nodules and, in total, 50 lung cancers were found, representing 4% of all new solid nodules. 34 (68%) lung cancers were diagnosed at stage I. Nodule volume had a high discriminatory power (area under the receiver operating curve 0·795 [95% CI 0·728-0·862]; p<0·0001). Nodules smaller than 27 mm(3) had a low probability of lung cancer (two [0·5%] of 417 nodules; lung cancer probability 0·5% [95% CI 0·0-1·9]), nodules with a volume of 27 mm(3) up to 206 mm(3) had an intermediate probability (17 [3·1%] of 542 nodules; lung cancer probability 3·1% [1·9-5·0]), and nodules of 206 mm(3) or greater had a high probability (29 [16·9%] of 172 nodules; lung cancer probability 16·9% [12·0-23·2]). A volume cutoff value of 27 mm(3) or greater had more than 95% sensitivity for lung cancer. INTERPRETATION: Our study shows that new solid nodules are detected at each screening round in 5-7% of individuals who undergo screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT. These new nodules have a high probability of malignancy even at a small size. These findings should be considered in future screening guidelines, and new solid nodules should be followed up more aggressively than nodules detected at baseline screening. FUNDING: Zorgonderzoek Nederland Medische Wetenschappen and Koningin Wilhelmina Fonds Kankerbestrijding.

Benefits and harms of computed tomography lung cancer screening strategies: a comparative modeling study for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

BACKGROUND: The optimum screening policy for lung cancer is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To identify efficient computed tomography (CT) screening scenarios in which relatively more lung cancer deaths are averted for fewer CT screening examinations. DESIGN: Comparative modeling study using 5 independent models. DATA SOURCES: The National Lung Screening Trial; the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening trial; the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; and the U.S. Smoking History Generator. TARGET POPULATION: U.S. cohort born in 1950. TIME HORIZON: Cohort followed from ages 45 to 90 years. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: 576 scenarios with varying eligibility criteria (age, pack-years of smoking, years since quitting) and screening intervals. OUTCOME MEASURES: Benefits included lung cancer deaths averted or life-years gained. Harms included CT examinations, false-positive results (including those obtained from biopsy/surgery), overdiagnosed cases, and radiation-related deaths. RESULTS OF BEST-CASE SCENARIO: The most advantageous strategy was annual screening from ages 55 through 80 years for ever-smokers with a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and ex-smokers with less than 15 years since quitting. It would lead to 50% (model ranges, 45% to 54%) of cases of cancer being detected at an early stage (stage I/II), 575 screening examinations per lung cancer death averted, a 14% (range, 8.2% to 23.5%) reduction in lung cancer mortality, 497 lung cancer deaths averted, and 5250 life-years gained per the 100,000-member cohort. Harms would include 67,550 false-positive test results, 910 biopsies or surgeries for benign lesions, and 190 overdiagnosed cases of cancer (3.7% of all cases of lung cancer [model ranges, 1.4% to 8.3%]). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The number of cancer deaths averted for the scenario varied across models between 177 and 862; the number of overdiagnosed cases of cancer varied between 72 and 426. LIMITATIONS: Scenarios assumed 100% screening adherence. Data derived from trials with short duration were extrapolated to lifetime follow-up. CONCLUSION: Annual CT screening for lung cancer has a favorable benefit-harm ratio for individuals aged 55 through 80 years with 30 or more pack-years' exposure to smoking. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.