Risk-based lung cancer screening performance in a universal healthcare setting.

Globally, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Previous trials demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening of high-risk individuals can reduce lung cancer mortality by 20% or more. Lung cancer screening has been approved by major guidelines in the United States, and over 4,000 sites offer screening. Adoption of lung screening outside the United States has, until recently, been slow. Between June 2017 and May 2019, the Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot successfully recruited 7,768 individuals at high risk identified by using the PLCOm2012noRace lung cancer risk prediction model. In total, 4,451 participants were successfully screened, retained and provided with high-quality follow-up, including appropriate treatment. In the Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot, the lung cancer detection rate and the proportion of early-stage cancers were 2.4% and 79.2%, respectively; serious harms were infrequent; and sensitivity to detect lung cancers was 95.3% or more. With abnormal scans defined as ones leading to diagnostic investigation, specificity was 95.5% (positive predictive value, 35.1%), and adherence to annual recall and early surveillance scans and clinical investigations were high (>85%). The Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot provides insights into how a risk-based organized lung screening program can be implemented in a large, diverse, populous geographic area within a universal healthcare system.

Risk prediction models for lung cancer in people who have never smoked: a protocol of a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers and the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Although smoking is the primary cause of the cancer, lung cancer is also commonly diagnosed in people who have never smoked. Currently, the proportion of people who have never smoked diagnosed with lung cancer is increasing. Despite this alarming trend, this population is ineligible for lung screening. With the increasing proportion of people who have never smoked among lung cancer cases, there is a pressing need to develop prediction models to identify high-risk people who have never smoked and include them in lung cancer screening programs. Thus, our systematic review is intended to provide a comprehensive summary of the evidence on existing risk prediction models for lung cancer in people who have never smoked. METHODS: Electronic searches will be conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics), Scopus, and Europe PMC and Open-Access Theses and Dissertations databases. Two reviewers will independently perform title and abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction using the Covidence review platform. Data extraction will be performed based on the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies (CHARMS). The risk of bias will be evaluated independently by two reviewers using the Prediction model Risk-of-Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) tool. If a sufficient number of studies are identified to have externally validated the same prediction model, we will combine model performance measures to evaluate the model's average predictive accuracy (e.g., calibration, discrimination) across diverse settings and populations and explore sources of heterogeneity. DISCUSSION: The results of the review will identify risk prediction models for lung cancer in people who have never smoked. These will be useful for researchers planning to develop novel prediction models, and for clinical practitioners and policy makers seeking guidance for clinical decision-making and the formulation of future lung cancer screening strategies for people who have never smoked. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol has been registered in PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42023483824.

Radiomics analysis to predict pulmonary nodule malignancy using machine learning approaches.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose CT screening can reduce lung cancer-related mortality. However, most screen-detected pulmonary abnormalities do not develop into cancer and it often remains challenging to identify malignant nodules, particularly among indeterminate nodules. We aimed to develop and assess prediction models based on radiological features to discriminate between benign and malignant pulmonary lesions detected on a baseline screen. METHODS: Using four international lung cancer screening studies, we extracted 2060 radiomic features for each of 16 797 nodules (513 malignant) among 6865 participants. After filtering out low-quality radiomic features, 642 radiomic and 9 epidemiological features remained for model development. We used cross-validation and grid search to assess three machine learning (ML) models (eXtreme Gradient Boosted Trees, random forest, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO)) for their ability to accurately predict risk of malignancy for pulmonary nodules. We report model performance based on the area under the curve (AUC) and calibration metrics in the held-out test set. RESULTS: The LASSO model yielded the best predictive performance in cross-validation and was fit in the full training set based on optimised hyperparameters. Our radiomics model had a test-set AUC of 0.93 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.96) and outperformed the established Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer model (AUC 0.87, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.89) for nodule assessment. Our model performed well among both solid (AUC 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.97) and subsolid nodules (AUC 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: We developed highly accurate ML models based on radiomic and epidemiological features from four international lung cancer screening studies that may be suitable for assessing indeterminate screen-detected pulmonary nodules for risk of malignancy.

Risk model-based management for second primary lung cancer among lung cancer survivors through a validated risk prediction model.

BACKGROUND: Recent therapeutic advances and screening technologies have improved survival among patients with lung cancer, who are now at high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). Recently, an SPLC risk-prediction model (called SPLC-RAT) was developed and validated using data from population-based epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials, but real-world validation has been lacking. The predictive performance of SPLC-RAT was evaluated in a hospital-based cohort of lung cancer survivors. METHODS: The authors analyzed data from 8448 ever-smoking patients diagnosed with initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) in 1997-2006 at Mayo Clinic, with each patient followed for SPLC through 2018. The predictive performance of SPLC-RAT and further explored the potential of improving SPLC detection through risk model-based surveillance using SPLC-RAT versus existing clinical surveillance guidelines. RESULTS: Of 8448 IPLC patients, 483 (5.7%) developed SPLC over 26,470 person-years. The application of SPLC-RAT showed high discrimination area under the receiver operating characteristics curve: 0.81). When the cohort was stratified by a 10-year risk threshold of ≥5.6% (i.e., 80th percentile from the SPLC-RAT development cohort), the observed SPLC incidence was significantly elevated in the high-risk versus low-risk subgroup (13.1% vs. 1.1%, p < 1 × 10-6 ). The risk-based surveillance through SPLC-RAT (≥5.6% threshold) outperformed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines with higher sensitivity (86.4% vs. 79.4%) and specificity (38.9% vs. 30.4%) and required 20% fewer computed tomography follow-ups needed to detect one SPLC (162 vs. 202). CONCLUSION: In a large, hospital-based cohort, the authors validated the predictive performance of SPLC-RAT in identifying high-risk survivors of SPLC and showed its potential to improve SPLC detection through risk-based surveillance. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Lung cancer survivors have a high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). However, no evidence-based guidelines for SPLC surveillance are available for lung cancer survivors. Recently, an SPLC risk-prediction model was developed and validated using data from population-based epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials, but real-world validation has been lacking. Using a large, real-world cohort of lung cancer survivors, we showed the high predictive accuracy and risk-stratification ability of the SPLC risk-prediction model. Furthermore, we demonstrated the potential to enhance efficiency in detecting SPLC using risk model-based surveillance strategies compared to the existing consensus-based clinical guidelines, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening and Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the US.

Importance: The revised 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for lung cancer screening have been shown to reduce disparities in screening eligibility and performance between African American and White individuals vs the 2013 guidelines. However, potential disparities across other racial and ethnic groups in the US remain unknown. Risk model-based screening may reduce racial and ethnic disparities and improve screening performance, but neither validation of key risk prediction models nor their screening performance has been examined by race and ethnicity. Objective: To validate and recalibrate the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial 2012 (PLCOm2012) model-a well-established risk prediction model based on a predominantly White population-across races and ethnicities in the US and evaluate racial and ethnic disparities and screening performance through risk-based screening using PLCOm2012 vs the USPSTF 2021 criteria. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a population-based cohort design, the Multiethnic Cohort Study enrolled participants in 1993-1996, followed up through December 31, 2018. Data analysis was conducted from April 1, 2022, to May 19. 2023. A total of 105 261 adults with a smoking history were included. Exposures: The 6-year lung cancer risk was calculated through recalibrated PLCOm2012 (ie, PLCOm2012-Update) and screening eligibility based on a 6-year risk threshold greater than or equal to 1.3%, yielding similar eligibility as the USPSTF 2021 guidelines. Outcomes: Predictive accuracy, screening eligibility-incidence (E-I) ratio (ie, ratio of the number of eligible to incident cases), and screening performance (sensitivity, specificity, and number needed to screen to detect 1 lung cancer). Results: Of 105 261 participants (60 011 [57.0%] men; mean [SD] age, 59.8 [8.7] years), consisting of 19 258 (18.3%) African American, 27 227 (25.9%) Japanese American, 21 383 (20.3%) Latino, 8368 (7.9%) Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and 29 025 (27.6%) White individuals, 1464 (1.4%) developed lung cancer within 6 years from enrollment. The PLCOm2012-Update showed good predictive accuracy across races and ethnicities (area under the curve, 0.72-0.82). The USPSTF 2021 criteria yielded a large disparity among African American individuals, whose E-I ratio was 53% lower vs White individuals (E-I ratio: 9.5 vs 20.3; P < .001). Under the risk-based screening (PLCOm2012-Update 6-year risk ≥1.3%), the disparity between African American and White individuals was substantially reduced (E-I ratio: 15.9 vs 18.4; P < .001), with minimal disparities observed in persons of other minoritized groups, including Japanese American, Latino, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. Risk-based screening yielded superior overall and race and ethnicity-specific performance to the USPSTF 2021 criteria, with higher overall sensitivity (67.2% vs 57.7%) and lower number needed to screen (26 vs 30) at similar specificity (76.6%). Conclusions: The findings of this cohort study suggest that risk-based lung cancer screening can reduce racial and ethnic disparities and improve screening performance across races and ethnicities vs the USPSTF 2021 criteria.

Integrating Smoking Cessation Into Low-Dose Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening: Results of the Ontario, Canada Pilot.

INTRODUCTION: Low-dose computed tomography screening in high-risk individuals reduces lung cancer mortality. To inform the implementation of a provincial lung cancer screening program, Ontario Health undertook a Pilot study, which integrated smoking cessation (SC). METHODS: The impact of integrating SC into the Pilot was assessed by the following: rate of acceptance of a SC referral; proportion of individuals who were currently smoking cigarettes and attended a SC session; the quit rate at 1 year; change in the number of quit attempts; change in Heaviness of Smoking Index; and relapse rate in those who previously smoked. RESULTS: A total of 7768 individuals were recruited predominantly through primary care physician referral. Of these, 4463 were currently smoking and were risk assessed and referred to SC services, irrespective of screening eligibility: 3114 (69.8%) accepted referral to an in-hospital SC program, 431 (9.7%) to telephone quit lines, and 50 (1.1%) to other programs. In addition, 4.4% reported no intention to quit and 8.5% were not interested in participating in a SC program. Of the 3063 screen-eligible individuals who were smoking at baseline low-dose computed tomography scan, 2736 (89.3%) attended in-hospital SC counseling. The quit rate at 1 year was 15.5% (95% confidence interval: 13.4%-17.7%; range: 10.5%-20.0%). Improvements were also observed in Heaviness of Smoking Index (p < 0.0001), number of cigarettes smoked per day (p < 0.0001), time to first cigarette (p < 0.0001), and number of quit attempts (p < 0.001). Of those who reported having quit within the previous 6 months, 6.3% had resumed smoking at 1 year. Furthermore, 92.7% of the respondents reported satisfaction with the hospital-based SC program. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these observations, the Ontario Lung Screening Program continues to recruit through primary care providers, to assess risk for eligibility using trained navigators, and to use an opt-out approach to referral for cessation services. In addition, initial in-hospital SC support and intensive follow-on cessation interventions will be provided to the extent possible.

Air Pollution and Lung Cancer: A Review by International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Early Detection and Screening Committee.

INTRODUCTION: The second leading cause of lung cancer is air pollution. Air pollution and smoking are synergistic. Air pollution can worsen lung cancer survival. METHODS: The Early Detection and Screening Committee of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer formed a working group to better understand issues in air pollution and lung cancer. These included identification of air pollutants, their measurement, and proposed mechanisms of carcinogenesis. The burden of disease and the underlying epidemiologic evidence linking air pollution to lung cancer in individuals who never and ever smoked were summarized to quantify the problem, assess risk prediction models, and develop recommended actions. RESULTS: The number of estimated attributable lung cancer deaths has increased by nearly 30% since 2007 as smoking has decreased and air pollution has increased. In 2013, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified outdoor air pollution and particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns in outdoor air pollution as carcinogenic to humans (International Agency for Research on Cancer group 1) and as a cause of lung cancer. Lung cancer risk models reviewed do not include air pollution. Estimation of cumulative exposure to air pollution exposure is complex which poses major challenges with accurately collecting long-term exposure to ambient air pollution for incorporation into risk prediction models in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Worldwide air pollution levels vary widely, and the exposed populations also differ. Advocacy to lower sources of exposure is important. Health care can lower its environmental footprint, becoming more sustainable and resilient. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer community can engage broadly on this topic.

Fifty-year forecasts of daily smoking prevalence: can Australia reach 5% by 2030?

OBJECTIVE: To compare 50-year forecasts of Australian tobacco smoking rates in relation to trends in smoking initiation and cessation and in relation to a national target of ≤5% adult daily prevalence by 2030. METHODS: A compartmental model of Australian population daily smoking, calibrated to the observed smoking status of 229 523 participants aged 20-99 years in 26 surveys (1962-2016) by age, sex and birth year (1910-1996), estimated smoking prevalence to 2066 using Australian Bureau of Statistics 50-year population predictions. Prevalence forecasts were compared across scenarios in which smoking initiation and cessation trends from 2017 were continued, kept constant or reversed. RESULTS: At the end of the observation period in 2016, model-estimated daily smoking prevalence was 13.7% (90% equal-tailed interval (EI) 13.4%-14.0%). When smoking initiation and cessation rates were held constant, daily smoking prevalence reached 5.2% (90% EI 4.9%-5.5%) after 50 years, in 2066. When initiation and cessation rates continued their trajectory downwards and upwards, respectively, daily smoking prevalence reached 5% by 2039 (90% EI 2037-2041). The greatest progress towards the 5% goal came from eliminating initiation among younger cohorts, with the target met by 2037 (90% EI 2036-2038) in the most optimistic scenario. Conversely, if initiation and cessation rates reversed to 2007 levels, estimated prevalence was 9.1% (90% EI 8.8%-9.4%) in 2066. CONCLUSION: A 5% adult daily smoking prevalence target cannot be achieved by the year 2030 based on current trends. Urgent investment in concerted strategies that prevent smoking initiation and facilitate cessation is necessary to achieve 5% prevalence by 2030.

Evaluation of the accuracy of the PLCOm2012 6-year lung cancer risk prediction model among smokers in the CARTaGENE population-based cohort.

BACKGROUND: The PLCOm2012 prediction tool for risk of lung cancer has been proposed for a pilot program for lung cancer screening in Quebec, but has not been validated in this population. We sought to validate PLCOm2012 in a cohort of Quebec residents, and to determine the hypothetical performance of different screening strategies. METHODS: We included smokers without a history of lung cancer from the population-based CARTaGENE cohort. To assess PLCOm2012 calibration and discrimination, we determined the ratio of expected to observed number of cases, as well as the sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values of different risk thresholds. To assess the performance of screening strategies if applied between Jan. 1, 1998, and Dec. 31, 2015, we tested different thresholds of the PLCOm2012 detection of lung cancer over 6 years (1.51%, 1.70% and 2.00%), the criteria of Quebec's pilot program (for people aged 55-74 yr and 50-74 yr) and recommendations from 2021 United States and 2016 Canada guidelines. We assessed shift and serial scenarios of screening, whereby eligibility was assessed annually or every 6 years, respectively. RESULTS: Among 11 652 participants, 176 (1.51%) lung cancers were diagnosed in 6 years. The PLCOm2012 tool underestimated the number of cases (expected-to-observed ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.79), but the discrimination was good (C-statistic 0.727, 95% CI 0.679-0.770). From a threshold of 1.51% to 2.00%, sensitivities ranged from 52.3% (95% CI 44.6%-59.8%) to 44.9% (95% CI 37.4%-52.6%), specificities ranged from 81.6% (95% CI 80.8%-82.3%) to 87.7% (95% CI 87.0%-88.3%) and positive predictive values ranged from 4.2% (95% CI 3.4%-5.1%) to 5.3% (95% CI 4.2%-6.5%). Overall, 8938 participants had sufficient data to test performance of screening strategies. If eligibility was estimated annually, Quebec pilot criteria would have detected fewer cancers than PLCOm2012 at a 2.00% threshold (48.3% v. 50.2%) for a similar number of scans per detected cancer. If eligibility was estimated every 6 years, up to 26 fewer lung cancers would have been detected; however, this scenario led to higher positive predictive values (highest for PLCOm2012 with a 2.00% threshold at 6.0%, 95% CI 4.8%-7.3%). INTERPRETATION: In a cohort of Quebec smokers, the PLCOm2012 risk prediction tool had good discrimination in detecting lung cancer, but it may be helpful to adjust the intercept to improve calibration. The implementation of risk prediction models in some of the provinces of Canada should be done with caution.

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.

Design and methodological considerations for biomarker discovery and validation in the Integrative Analysis of Lung Cancer Etiology and Risk (INTEGRAL) Program.

The Integrative Analysis of Lung Cancer Etiology and Risk (INTEGRAL) program is an NCI-funded initiative with an objective to develop tools to optimize low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening. Here, we describe the rationale and design for the Risk Biomarker and Nodule Malignancy projects within INTEGRAL. The overarching goal of these projects is to systematically investigate circulating protein markers to include on a panel for use (i) pre-LDCT, to identify people likely to benefit from screening, and (ii) post-LDCT, to differentiate benign versus malignant nodules. To identify informative proteins, the Risk Biomarker project measured 1161 proteins in a nested-case control study within 2 prospective cohorts (n = 252 lung cancer cases and 252 controls) and replicated associations for a subset of proteins in 4 cohorts (n = 479 cases and 479 controls). Eligible participants had a current or former history of smoking and cases were diagnosed up to 3 years following blood draw. The Nodule Malignancy project measured 1078 proteins among participants with a heavy smoking history within four LDCT screening studies (n = 425 cases diagnosed up to 5 years following blood draw, 430 benign-nodule controls, and 398 nodule-free controls). The INTEGRAL panel will enable absolute quantification of 21 proteins. We will evaluate its performance in the Risk Biomarker project using a case-cohort study including 14 cohorts (n = 1696 cases and 2926 subcohort representatives), and in the Nodule Malignancy project within five LDCT screening studies (n = 675 cases, 680 benign-nodule controls, and 648 nodule-free controls). Future progress to advance lung cancer early detection biomarkers will require carefully designed validation, translational, and comparative studies.

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.

Lung Cancer Absolute Risk Models for Mortality in an Asian Population using the China Kadoorie Biobank.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality globally. Early detection through risk-based screening can markedly improve prognosis. However, most risk models were developed in North American cohorts of smokers, whereas less is known about risk profiles for never-smokers, which represent a growing proportion of lung cancers, particularly in Asian populations. METHODS: Based on the China Kadoorie Biobank, a population-based prospective cohort of 512 639 adults with up to 12 years of follow-up, we built Asian Lung Cancer Absolute Risk Models (ALARM) for lung cancer mortality using flexible parametric survival models, separately for never and ever-smokers, accounting for competing risks of mortality. Model performance was evaluated in a 25% hold-out test set using the time-dependent area under the curve and by comparing model-predicted and observed risks for calibration. RESULTS: Predictors assessed in the never-smoker lung cancer mortality model were demographics, body mass index, lung function, history of emphysema or bronchitis, personal or family history of cancer, passive smoking, and indoor air pollution. The ever-smoker model additionally assessed smoking history. The 5-year areas under the curve in the test set were 0.77 (95% confidence interval = 0.73 to 0.80) and 0.81 (95% confidence interval = 0.79 to 0.84) for ALARM-never-smokers and ALARM-ever smokers, respectively. The maximum 5-year risk for never and ever-smokers was 2.6% and 12.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study is among the first to develop risk models specifically for Asian populations separately for never and ever-smokers. Our models accurately identify Asians at high risk of lung cancer death and may identify those with risks exceeding common eligibility thresholds who may benefit from screening.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening by the 2021 USPSTF Guidelines Versus Risk-Based Criteria: The Multiethnic Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised its lung cancer screening guidelines to expand screening eligibility. We evaluated screening sensitivities and racial and ethnic disparities under the 2021 USPSTF criteria vs alternative risk-based criteria in a racially and ethnically diverse population. METHODS: In the Multiethnic Cohort, we evaluated the proportion of ever-smoking lung cancer cases eligible for screening (ie, screening sensitivity) under the 2021 USPSTF criteria and under risk-based criteria through the PLCOm2012 model (6-year risk ≥1.51%). We also calculated the screening disparity (ie, absolute sensitivity difference) for each of 4 racial or ethnic groups (African American, Japanese American, Latino, Native Hawaiian) vs White cases. RESULTS: Among 5900 lung cancer cases, 43.3% were screen eligible under the 2021 USPSTF criteria. Screening sensitivities varied by race and ethnicity, with Native Hawaiian (56.7%) and White (49.6%) cases attaining the highest sensitivities and Latino (37.3%), African American (38.4%), and Japanese American (40.0%) cases attaining the lowest. Latino cases had the greatest screening disparity vs White cases at 12.4%, followed by African American (11.2%) and Japanese American (9.6%) cases. Under risk-based screening, the overall screening sensitivity increased to 75.7%, and all racial and ethnic groups had increased sensitivities (54.5%-91.9%). Whereas the screening disparity decreased to 5.1% for African American cases, it increased to 28.6% for Latino cases and 12.8% for Japanese American cases. CONCLUSIONS: In the Multiethnic Cohort, racial and ethnic disparities decreased but persisted under the 2021 USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines. Risk-based screening through PLCOm2012 may increase screening sensitivities and help to reduce disparities in some, but not all, racial and ethnic groups. Further optimization of risk-based screening strategies across diverse populations is needed.

Race & sex disparities related to low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening eligibility criteria: A lung cancer cases review.

INTRODUCTION: The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations do not account for race and sex differences in lung cancer risk. We compared the sensitivity for finding lung cancer cases eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) by USPSTF 2013 recommendations versus the PLCOm2012 model at an equivalent threshold. METHODS: Using Georgetown University Hospital tumor registry, we identified lung cancer cases (≥55 years old) between 2014 and 2018. Medical chart review collected age, sex, race, education, smoking, and clinical characteristics. We compared the percentage meeting eligibility criteria overall, and by race and sex. RESULTS: The cases (N = 447) were 36.6% Black and 52.6% female. The PLCOm2012 and USPSTF 2013 criteria identified 71.4% and 45.6% of cases, respectively (p < 0.0001). This difference was consistent across race and sex sub-groups (p < 0.0001). The PLCOm2012 was more sensitive than the USPSTF in Blacks (69.9% vs. 46.6%, p < 0.0001) and in women (69.8% vs. 41.3%, p < 0.0001). The USPSTF had poor sensitivity for both race groups (Black 46.6%, White 45.9%, p = 0.886) and had lower sensitivity in women vs. men (41.3% vs. 51.4%, p = 0.032). The PLCOm2012 had higher sensitivities in women and men, and difference between sexes was not significant (69.8% vs. 72.6%, p = 0.506). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the USPSTF 2013 recommendations, the PLCOm2012 model selected a larger proportion of lung cancer cases in all race-sex strata and removed the sex disparity observed for the USPSTF. The PLCOm2012 risk model could be used to identify those who will benefit from LCS.

Delivery of Cancer Care in Ontario, Canada, During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted cancer systems worldwide. Quantifying the changes is critical to informing the delivery of care while the pandemic continues, as well as for system recovery and future pandemic planning. Objective: To quantify change in the delivery of cancer services across the continuum of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study assessed cancer screening, imaging, diagnostic, treatment, and psychosocial oncological care services delivered in pediatric and adult populations in Ontario, Canada (population 14.7 million), from April 1, 2019, to March 1, 2021. Data were analyzed from May 1 to July 31, 2021. Exposures: COVID-19 pandemic. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cancer service volumes from the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, defined as April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021, were compared with volumes during a prepandemic period of April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. Results: During the first year of the pandemic, there were a total of 4 476 693 cancer care services, compared with 5 644 105 services in the year prior, a difference of 20.7% fewer services of cancer care, representing a potential backlog of 1 167 412 cancer services. While there were less pronounced changes in systemic treatments, emergency and urgent imaging examinations (eg, 1.9% more parenteral systemic treatments) and surgical procedures (eg, 65% more urgent surgical procedures), major reductions were observed for most services beginning in March 2020. Compared with the year prior, during the first pandemic year, cancer screenings were reduced by 42.4% (-1 016 181 screening tests), cancer treatment surgical procedures by 14.1% (-8020 procedures), and radiation treatment visits by 21.0% (-141 629 visits). Biopsies to confirm cancer decreased by up to 41.2% and surgical cancer resections by up to 27.8% during the first pandemic wave. New consultation volumes also decreased, such as for systemic treatment (-8.2%) and radiation treatment (-9.3%). The use of virtual cancer care increased for systemic treatment and radiation treatment and psychosocial oncological care visits, increasing from 0% to 20% of total new or follow-up visits prior to the pandemic up to 78% of total visits in the first pandemic year. Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada, large reductions in cancer service volumes were observed. While most services recovered to prepandemic levels at the end of the first pandemic year, a substantial care deficit likely accrued. The anticipated downstream morbidity and mortality associated with this deficit underscore the urgent need to address the backlog and recover cancer care and warrant further study.

Lung cancer screening use and implications of varying eligibility criteria by race and ethnicity: 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for low-dose computed tomographic lung cancer screening (LCS) to reduce racial disparities that resulted from the 2013 USPSTF criteria. The annual LCS rate has risen slowly since the 2013 USPSTF screening recommendations. Using the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), this study 1) describes LCS use in 2019, 2) compares the percent eligible for LCS using the 2013 versus 2021 USPSTF criteria, and 3) determines the percent eligible using the more detailed PLCOm2012Race3L risk-prediction model. METHODS: The analysis included 41,544 individuals with a smoking history from states participating in the BRFSS LCS module who were ≥50 years old. RESULTS: Using the 2013 USPSTF criteria, 20.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.0-22.4) of eligible individuals underwent LCS in 2019. The 2013 USPSTF criteria was compared to the 2021 USPSTF criteria, and the overall proportion eligible increased from 21.0% (95% CI, 20.2-21.8) to 34.7% (95 CI, 33.8-35.6). Applying the 2021 criteria, the proportion eligible by race was 35.8% (95% CI, 34.8-36.7) among Whites, 28.5% (95% CI, 25.2-31.9) among Blacks, and 18.0% (95% CI, 12.4-23.7) among Hispanics. Using the 1.0% 6-year threshold that is comparable to the 2021 USPSTF criteria, the PLCOm2012Race3L model selected more individuals overall and by race. CONCLUSIONS: Using data from 20 states and using multiple imputation, higher LCS rates have been reported compared to prior BRFSS data. The 2021 expanded criteria will result in a greater number of screen-eligible individuals. However, risk-based screening that uses additional risk factors may be more inclusive overall and across subgroups. LAY SUMMARY: In 2013, lung cancer screening (lung screening) was recommended for high risk individuals. The annual rate of lung screening has risen slowly, particularly among Black individuals. In part, this racial disparity resulted in expanded 2021 criteria. Survey data was used to: 1) describe the number of people screened in 2019, 2) compare the percent eligible for lung screening using the 2013 versus 2021 guidelines, and 3) determine the percent eligible using more detailed criteria. Lung screening rates increased in 2019, and the 2021 criteria will result in more individuals eligible for screening. Using additional criteria may identify more individuals eligible for lung screening.

Blood-Based Biomarker Panel for Personalized Lung Cancer Risk Assessment.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether a panel of circulating protein biomarkers would improve risk assessment for lung cancer screening in combination with a risk model on the basis of participant characteristics. METHODS: A blinded validation study was performed using prostate lung colorectal ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial data and biospecimens to evaluate the performance of a four-marker protein panel (4MP) consisting of the precursor form of surfactant protein B, cancer antigen 125, carcinoembryonic antigen, and cytokeratin-19 fragment in combination with a lung cancer risk prediction model (PLCOm2012) compared with current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening criteria. The 4MP was assayed in 1,299 sera collected preceding lung cancer diagnosis and 8,709 noncase sera. RESULTS: The 4MP alone yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.82) for case sera collected within 1-year preceding diagnosis and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.76) among the entire specimen set. The combined 4MP + PLCOm2012 model yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.88) for case sera collected within 1 year preceding diagnosis. The benefit of the 4MP in the combined model resulted from improvement in sensitivity at high specificity. Compared with the USPSTF2021 criteria, the combined 4MP + PLCOm2012 model exhibited statistically significant improvements in sensitivity and specificity. Among PLCO participants with ≥ 10 smoking pack-years, the 4MP + PLCOm2012 model would have identified for annual screening 9.2% more lung cancer cases and would have reduced referral by 13.7% among noncases compared with USPSTF2021 criteria. CONCLUSION: A blood-based biomarker panel in combination with PLCOm2012 significantly improves lung cancer risk assessment for lung cancer screening.

Addressing Sex Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility: USPSTF vs PLCOm2012 Criteria.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in women in the United States. Prospective randomized lung screening trials suggest a greater lung cancer mortality benefit from screening women compared with men. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung screening guidelines that are based solely on age and smoking history contribute to sex disparities in eligibility, and if so, does the use of the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model that is based on 11 predictors of lung cancer reduce sex disparities? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis of 883 lung cancer cases in the Chicago Race Eligibility for Screening Cohort (CREST) determined the sensitivity of USPSTF vs PLCOm2012 eligibility criteria, stratified according to sex. For comparisons vs the USPSTF 2013 and the recently published USPSTF 2021 (released March 9, 2021) eligibility criteria, the PLCOm2012 model was used with risk thresholds of ≥ 1.7%/6 years (6y) and ≥ 1.0%/6y, respectively. RESULTS: The sensitivities for screening by the USPSTF 2013 were 46.7% for women and 64.6% for men (P = .003) and by the USPSTF 2021 were 56.8% and 71.8%, respectively (P = .02). In contrast, the PLCOm2012 ≥ 1.7%/6y sensitivities were 64.6% and 70.4%, and the PLCOm2012 ≥ 1.0%/6y sensitivities were 77.4% and 82.4%. The PLCOm2012 differences in sensitivity using ≥ 1.7%/6y and ≥ 1.0%/6y thresholds between women and men were nonsignificant (both, P = .07). Compared with men, women were more likely to be ineligible according to the USPSTF 2021 criteria because their smoking exposures were < 20 pack-years (22.8% vs 14.8%; ORWomen vs Men, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.19-2.44; P = .002), and 27% of these ineligible women were eligible according to the PLCOm2012 ≥ 1.0%/6y criteria. INTERPRETATION: Although the USPSTF 2021 eligibility criteria are more sensitive than the USPSTF 2013 guidelines, sex disparities in eligibility remain. Adding the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model to the USPSTF guidelines would improve sensitivity and attenuate sex disparities.