Tag: lung cancer

How to Improve CT Lung Cancer Screening

Posted on by Brian Casey

As the US grapples with low CT lung cancer screening rates, researchers and clinicians around the world are pressing ahead with ways to make the exam more effective – especially in countries with high smoking rates. Two new studies published this week show the progress that’s being made.

In Brazil, researchers in JAMA Network Open found that using broader criteria to determine who should get CT lung screening not only expanded the eligible population, but it also reduced racial disparities in screening’s effectiveness. 

Researchers compared three strategies for determining screening eligibility: two based on 2013 and 2021 USPSTF criteria, and one in which all ever-smokers ages 50-80 were screened, finding: 

  • Screening all ever-smokers generated the largest possible screening population (27.3M people) compared to USPSTF criteria for 2013 (5.1M) and 2021 (8.4M)
  • Number of life-years gained if lung cancer is averted due to screening was highest with all-screening (23 vs. 19 & 21)
  • But the all-screening strategy also had the highest number needed to screen to prevent one lung cancer death (472 vs 177 & 242)
  • The USPSTF 2021 criteria reduced (but did not eliminate) racial disparities; the USPSTF 2013 criteria produced the greatest disparity 

The authors said the results showed that CT lung cancer screening in Brazil could identify 57% of preventable lung cancer deaths if 22% of ever-smokers are screened. Their study should help the country decide which screening strategy to adopt. 

In a second paper in the same journal, researchers from China described how they performed CT lung cancer screening via opportunistic screening, offering low-dose CT scans to patients visiting their doctor for other reasons, such as a routine checkup or a health problem other than a pulmonary issue. Among 5.2k patients, researchers found that people who got opportunistic LDCT screening had:

  • 49% lower risk of lung cancer death by hazard ratio
  • 46% lower risk of all-cause mortality
  • 43% received their lung cancer diagnosis through opportunistic screening

The Takeaway

This week’s studies continue the positive progress toward CT lung cancer screening that’s being made around the world. Both offer different strategies for making screening even more effective, and add to the growing weight of evidence in favor of population-based lung screening.

Lung Screening’s Long-Term Benefits

Posted on by Brian Casey

CT lung cancer screening produced lung cancer-specific survival over 80% in the most recent data from the landmark I-ELCAP study, a remarkable testament to the effectiveness of screening. 

The findings were published this week in Radiology from I-ELCAP, one of the first large-scale CT lung screening trials, and are the latest in a series of studies pointing to lung screening’s benefits. The findings were originally presented at RSNA 2022. 

The I-ELCAP study is ongoing and has enrolled 89k participants at over 80 sites worldwide from 1992-2022 who have been exposed to tobacco smoke and who received annual low-dose CT (≤ 3mGy) scans. Periodic I-ELCAP follow-up studies have documented the survival rates of those whose cancers were detected with LDCT, and the new numbers offer a 20-year follow-up, finding: 

  • Primary lung cancers were detected on LDCT in 1,257 individuals who had lung cancer-specific survival of 81%, matching the 10-year survival rate of 81%
  • 1,017 patients with clinical stage I lung cancer underwent surgical resection and saw a lung cancer-specific survival rate of 87%
  • The I-ELCAP survival rate is much higher than another landmark screening study, NLST, in which it was 73% for stage I cancer at 10 years
  • Lung cancer-specific survival hit a plateau after 10 years of follow-up, at a cure rate of about 80%

I-ELCAP is unique for a variety of reasons, one of which is that it continues to screen people beyond a baseline scan and 2-3 annual follow-up rounds – perhaps the reason for its higher survival rate relative to NLST. 

  • It also has included people who were exposed to tobacco smoke but who weren’t necessarily smokers – an important distinction in the debate over how broad to expand lung screening criteria.  

The findings come as CT lung cancer screening is generating growing momentum. Studies this year from Germany, Taiwan, and Hungary have demonstrated screening’s value, and several countries are ramping up national population-based screening programs. 

The Takeaway

The 20-year I-ELCAP data show that CT lung cancer screening works if you can get people to do it. But achieving survival rates over 80% also requires work on the part of healthcare providers, in terms of defined protocols for working up findings, data management for screening programs, and patient outreach to ensure adherence to annual screening. Fortunately, I-ELCAP offers a model for how it’s done.

More Support for CT Lung Cancer Screening

Posted on by Brian Casey

Yet another study supporting CT lung cancer screening has been published, adding to a growing body of evidence that population-based CT screening programs will be effective in reducing lung cancer deaths. 

The new study comes from European Radiology, where researchers from Hungary describe findings from HUNCHEST-II, a population-based program that screened 4.2k high-risk people at 18 institutions. 

  • Screening criteria were largely similar to other studies: people between the ages of 50 and 75 who were current or former smokers with at least 25 pack-year histories. Former smokers had quit within the last 15 years. 

Recruitment for HUNCHEST-II took place from September 2019 to January 2022. Participants received a baseline low-dose CT (LDCT) scan, with the study protocol calling for annual follow-up scans (more on this later). Researchers found: 

  • The prevalence of baseline screening exams positive for lung cancer was 4.1%, comparable to the NELSON trial (2.3%) but much lower than the NLST (27%)
  • 1.8% of participants were diagnosed with lung cancer throughout screening rounds
  • 1.5% of participants had their cancer found with the baseline exam
  • Positive predictive value was 58%, at the high end of population-based lung screening programs
  • 79% of screen-detected cancers were early stage, making them well-suited for treatment
  • False-positive rate was 42%, a figure the authors said was “concerning”

Taking a deeper dive into the data produces interesting revelations. Overdiagnosis is a major concern with any screening test; it was a particular problem with NLST but was lower with HUNCHEST-II. 

  • Researchers said they used a volume-based nodule evaluation protocol, which reduced the false-positive rate compared to the nodule diameter-based approach in NLST.

Also, a high attrition rate occurred between the baseline scan and annual screening rounds, with only 12% of individuals with negative baseline LDCT results going on to follow-up screening (although the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected these results). 

The Takeaway

The HUNCHEST-II results add to the growing momentum in favor of national population-based CT lung screening programs. Germany is planning to implement a program in early 2024, and Taiwan is moving in the same direction. The question is, does the US need to step up its game as screening compliance rates remain low?

CT Lung Screening Saves Women

Posted on by Brian Casey

October may be Breast Cancer Awareness Month, but a new study has great news for women when it comes to another life-threatening disease: lung cancer. 

Italian researchers in Lung Cancer found that CT lung cancer screening delivered survival benefits that were particularly dramatic for women – and could address cardiovascular disease as well. 

  • They found that in addition to much higher survival rates, women who got CT lung screening after 12 years of follow-up had lower all-cause mortality than men. 

Of all the cancer screening tests, lung screening is the new kid on the block.

  • Although randomized clinical trials have shown it to deliver lung cancer mortality benefits of 20% and higher, uptake of lung screening has been relatively slow compared to other tests.

In the current study, researchers from the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori in Milan analyzed data from 6.5k heavy smokers in the MILD and BioMILD trials who got low-dose CT screening from 2005 to 2016. 

In addition to cancer incidence and mortality, they also used Coreline Soft’s AVIEW software to calculate coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores acquired with the screening exams to see if they predicted lung cancer mortality. Researchers found that after 12 years of follow-up …

  • There was no statistically significant difference in lung cancer incidence between women and men (4.4% vs. 4.7%)
  • But women had lower lung cancer mortality than men (1% vs. 1.9%) as well as lower all-cause mortality (4.1% vs. 7.7%), both statistically significant
  • Women had higher lung cancer survival than men (72% vs. 52%)
  • 15% of participants had CAC scores between 101-400, and all-cause mortality increased with higher scores
  • Women had lower CAC scores, which could play a role in lower all-cause mortality due to less cardiovascular disease

The Takeaway

This is a fascinating study on several levels. First, it shows that lung cancer screening produces a statistically significant decline in all-cause mortality for women compared to men.

Second, it shows that CT lung cancer screening can also serve as a screening test for cardiovascular disease, helping direct those with high CAC scores to treatment such as statin therapy. This type of opportunistic screening could change the cost-benefit dynamic when it comes to analyzing lung screening’s value – especially for women.

More Work Ahead for Chest X-Ray AI?

Posted on by Brian Casey

In another blow to radiology AI, the UK’s national technology assessment agency issued an equivocal report on AI for chest X-ray, stating that more research is needed before the technology can enter routine clinical use.

The report came from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), which assesses new health technologies that have the potential to address unmet NHS needs. 

The NHS sees AI as a potential solution to its challenge of meeting rising demand for imaging services, a dynamic that’s leading to long wait times for exams. 

But at least some corners of the UK health establishment have concerns about whether AI for chest X-ray is ready for prime time. 

  • The NICE report states that – despite the unmet need for quicker chest X-ray reporting – there is insufficient evidence to support the technology, and as such it’s not possible to assess its clinical and cost benefits. And it said there is “no evidence” on the accuracy of AI-assisted clinician review compared to clinicians working alone.

As such, the use of AI for chest X-ray in the NHS should be limited to research, with the following additional recommendations …

  • Centers already using AI software to review chest X-rays may continue to do so, but only as part of an evaluation framework and alongside clinician review
  • Purchase of chest X-ray AI software should be made through corporate, research, or non-core NHS funding
  • More research is needed on AI’s impact on a number of outcomes, such as CT referrals, healthcare costs and resource use, review and reporting time, and diagnostic accuracy when used alongside clinician review

The NICE report listed 14 commercially available chest X-ray algorithms that need more research, and it recommended prospective studies to address gaps in evidence. AI developers will be responsible for performing these studies.

The Takeaway

Taken with last week’s disappointing news on AI for radiology, the NICE report is a wakeup call for what had been one of the most promising clinical use cases for AI. The NHS had been seen as a leader in spearheading clinical adoption of AI; for chest X-ray, clinicians in the UK may have to wait just a bit longer.

CT Detects Early Lung Cancer

Posted on by Brian Casey

A massive CT lung cancer screening program launched in Taiwan has been effective in detecting early lung cancer. Research presented at this week’s World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC) in Singapore offers more support for lung screening, which has seen the lowest uptake of the major population-based screening programs. 

Previous randomized clinical trials like the National Lung Screening Trial and the NELSON study have shown that LDCT lung cancer screening can reduce lung cancer mortality by at least 20%. But screening adherence rates remain low, ranging from the upper single digits to as high as 21% in a recent US study. 

Meanwhile, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. To reduce this burden, Taiwan in July 2022 launched the Lung Cancer Early Detection Program, which offers biennial screening nationwide to people at high risk of lung cancer.

The Taiwan program differs from screening programs in the US and South Korea by including family history of lung cancer in the eligibility criteria, rather than just focusing on people who smoke. 

Researchers at WCLC 2023 presented the first preliminary results from the program, covering almost 50k individuals screened from July 2022 to June 2023; 29k had a family history of lung cancer and 19k were people who smoked heavily. Researchers found …

  • 4.4k individuals receive a positive screening result for a positive rate of 9.2%
  • 531 people were diagnosed with lung cancer for a detection rate of 1.1%
  • 85% of cancers were diagnosed at an early stage, either stage 0 or stage 1

This last finding is perhaps the most significant, as part of the reason for lung cancer’s high mortality rate is that it’s often discovered at a late stage, when it’s far more difficult to treat. As such, lung cancer’s five-year survival rate is about 25% – far lower than breast cancer at 91%.

The Takeaway

Taiwan is setting an example to other countries for how to conduct a nationwide LDCT lung cancer screening program, even as some critics take aim at population-based screening. Taiwan’s approach is broader and more proactive than that of the US, for example, which has erected screening barriers like shared decision-making.

Although it’s still early days for the Taiwan program, future results will be examined closely to determine screening’s impact on lung cancer mortality – and respond to screening’s critics.

Value of Cancer Screening

Posted on by Brian Casey

A new study claims that medical screening for diseases like breast and cervical cancer has saved lives and generated value of at least $7.5T (yes, trillion) over the last 25 years. The findings, published in BMC Health Services Research, are a stunning rebuke to critics of screening exams.

While the vast majority of doctors and public health officials support evidence-based screening, a vocal minority of skeptics continues to raise questions about screening’s efficacy. These critics emphasize the “harms” of screening, such as overdiagnosis and patient anxiety – an accusation often levied against breast screening. 

Screening’s critics also target the downstream costs of medical tests intended to confirm suspicious findings. They argue that a single screen-detected finding can lead to a cascade of additional healthcare spending that drives up medical costs.

But the new study offers a counter-argument, putting a dollar figure on how much screening exams have saved by detecting disease earlier, when it can be treated more effectively. 

The research focused on the four main cancer screening tests – breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer – analyzing the impact of preventive screening on life-years saved and its economic impact from 1996 to 2020, finding …

  • Americans enjoyed at least 12M more years of life thanks to cancer screening
  • The economic value of these life-years added up to at least $7.5T
  • If everyone who qualified for screening exams got them, it would save at least another 3.3M life-years and $1.7T in economic impact
  • Cervical cancer screening had by far the biggest economic impact ($5.2T-$5.7T), followed by breast ($0.8T-$1.9T), colorectal ($0.4T-$1T), and finally lung ($40B). 

Lung cancer’s paltry value was due to a small eligible population and low screening adherence rates. This finding is underscored by a new article in STAT that ponders why CT lung cancer screening rates are so low, with one observer calling it the “redheaded stepchild” of screening tests.  

The Takeaway
Screening skeptics have been taking it on the chin lately (witness the USPSTF’s U-turn on mammography for younger women) and the new findings will be another blow. We may continue to see a dribble of papers on the “harms” of overdiagnosis, but the momentum is definitely shifting in screening’s favor – to the benefit of patients.

Is There Hope for CT Lung Screening?

Posted on by Brian Casey

New data on CT lung cancer screening rates offer a good news/bad news story. The bad news is that only 21.2% of eligible individuals in four US states got screened, far lower than other exams like breast or colon screening.

The good news is that, as low as the rate was relative to other tests, 21.2% is still much higher than previous estimates. And the study itself found that the rate of CT lung screening has risen over 8 percentage points in 3 years. 

Compliance has lagged with CT lung screening ever since Medicare approved payments for the exam in 2015. A recent JACR study found that screening rates were low for eligible people for both Medicare and commercial insurance (3.4% and 1.8%).

Why is screening compliance so low? Explanations have ranged from fatalism among people who smoke to reimbursement requirements for “shared decision-making,” which unlike other screening exams require patients and providers to discuss CT lung screening before an exam can be ordered.

In this new study in JAMA Network Open, researchers examined screening rates in four states – Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, and Rhode Island – from January 2021 to January 2022. The study drew data from the National Health Interview Survey and weighted it to reflect the population of the US of individuals eligible for CT lung screening, based on the criteria of ages 55-79, 30-pack-year smoking history, and having smoked or quit within the past 15 years. Major findings included: 

  • The rate for CT lung cancer screening was 21.2%, up from 12.8% in 2019
  • People with a primary health professional (PHP) were nearly 6 times more likely to get screened (OR=5.62)
  • The age sweet spot for screening was 65-77, with lower odds for those 55-64 (OR=0.43) and 78-79 (OR=0.17)
  • Rates varied between states, with Rhode Island having the highest rate (30.3%) and New Jersey the lowest (17.5%).
  • Of those who got screened, 27.7% were in poor health and 4.5% had no health insurance

The Takeaway

The findings offer some hope for CT lung screening, as the compliance rate is among the highest we’ve seen among recent research studies. On the other hand, many of those screened were in such poor health they might not benefit from treatment. The high rate of compliance in people with PHPs indicates that promoting screening with these providers could pay off, especially given the requirement for shared decision-making. 

Get every issue of The Imaging Wire, delivered right to your inbox.

You might also like..

Select All

You're signed up!

It's great to have you as a reader. Check your inbox for a welcome email.

-- The Imaging Wire team

You're all set!