Literature DB >> 29602813

Lung cancer risk to personalise annual and biennial follow-up computed tomography screening.

Anton Schreuder1, Cornelia M Schaefer-Prokop1,2, Ernst T Scholten1, Colin Jacobs1, Mathias Prokop1, Bram van Ginneken1,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: All lung cancer CT screening trials used fixed follow-up intervals, which may not be optimal. We developed new lung cancer risk models for personalising screening intervals to 1 year or 2 years, and compared these with existing models.
METHODS: We included participants in the CT arm of the National Lung Screening Trial (2002-2010) who underwent a baseline scan and a first annual follow-up scan and were not diagnosed with lung cancer in the first year. True and false positives and the area under the curve of each model were calculated. Internal validation was performed using bootstrapping.
RESULTS: Data from 24 542 participants were included in the analysis. The accuracy was 0.785, 0.693, 0.697, 0.666 and 0.727 for the polynomial, patient characteristics, diameter, Patz and PanCan models, respectively. Of the 24 542 participants included, 174 (0.71%) were diagnosed with lung cancer between the first and the second annual follow-ups. Using the polynomial model, 2558 (10.4%, 95% CI 10.0% to 10.8%), 7544 (30.7%, 30.2% to 31.3%), 10 947 (44.6%, 44.0% to 45.2%), 16 710 (68.1%, 67.5% to 68.7%) and 20 023 (81.6%, 81.1% to 92.1%) of the 24 368 participants who did not develop lung cancer in the year following the first follow-up screening round could have safely skipped it, at the expense of delayed diagnosis of 0 (0.0%, 0.0% to 2.7%), 8 (4.6%, 2.2% to 9.2%), 17 (9.8%, 6.0% to 15.4%), 44 (25.3%, 19.2% to 32.5%) and 70 (40.2%, 33.0% to 47.9%) of the 174 lung cancers, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The polynomial model, using both patient characteristics and baseline scan morphology, was significantly superior in assigning participants to 1-year or 2-year screening intervals. Implementing personalised follow-up intervals would enable hundreds of participants to skip a screening round per lung cancer diagnosis delayed. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical epidemiology; lung cancer

Year:  2018        PMID: 29602813     DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-211107

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Thorax        ISSN: 0040-6376            Impact factor:   9.139


  11 in total

Review 1.  The narrow path to organized LDCT lung cancer screening programs in Europe.

Authors:  Eugenio Paci
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Identification of Candidates for Longer Lung Cancer Screening Intervals Following a Negative Low-Dose Computed Tomography Result.

Authors:  Hilary A Robbins; Christine D Berg; Li C Cheung; Anil K Chaturvedi; Hormuzd A Katki
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Lung cancer screening: tell me more about post-test risk.

Authors:  Mario Silva; Gianluca Milanese; Ugo Pastorino; Nicola Sverzellati
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 4.  Lung cancer LDCT screening and mortality reduction - evidence, pitfalls and future perspectives.

Authors:  Matthijs Oudkerk; ShiYuan Liu; Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Joan E Walter; John K Field
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-10-12       Impact factor: 66.675

5.  Ten-year results of the Multicentric Italian Lung Detection trial demonstrate the safety and efficacy of biennial lung cancer screening.

Authors:  U Pastorino; N Sverzellati; S Sestini; M Silva; F Sabia; M Boeri; A Cantarutti; G Sozzi; G Corrao; A Marchianò
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2019-07-20       Impact factor: 9.162

6.  Validation of a serum 4-microRNA signature for the detection of lung cancer.

Authors:  Xia Yang; Wenmei Su; Xiuyuan Chen; Qianqian Geng; Jingyi Zhai; Hu Shan; Chunfang Guo; Zhuwen Wang; Han Fu; Hui Jiang; Jules Lin; Kiran Hari Lagisetty; Jie Zhang; Yali Li; Shuanying Yang; Pierre P Massion; David G Beer; Andrew C Chang; Nithya Ramnath; Guoan Chen
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2019-10

7.  Prolonged lung cancer screening reduced 10-year mortality in the MILD trial: new confirmation of lung cancer screening efficacy.

Authors:  U Pastorino; M Silva; S Sestini; F Sabia; M Boeri; A Cantarutti; N Sverzellati; G Sozzi; G Corrao; A Marchianò
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 32.976

8.  Perifissural nodules: ready for application into lung cancer CT screening?

Authors:  Anton Schreuder; Cornelia M Schaefer-Prokop
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-10

9.  Validation of multivariable lung cancer risk prediction models for the personalized assignment of optimal screening frequency: a retrospective analysis of data from the German Lung Cancer Screening Intervention Trial (LUSI).

Authors:  Sandra González Maldonado; Lucas Cory Hynes; Erna Motsch; Claus-Peter Heussel; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Hilary A Robbins; Stefan Delorme; Rudolf Kaaks
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2021-03

10.  Earlier diagnosis of lung cancer in a randomised trial of an autoantibody blood test followed by imaging.

Authors:  Frank M Sullivan; Frances S Mair; William Anderson; Pauline Armory; Andrew Briggs; Cindy Chew; Alistair Dorward; John Haughney; Fiona Hogarth; Denise Kendrick; Roberta Littleford; Alex McConnachie; Colin McCowan; Nicola McMeekin; Manish Patel; Petra Rauchhaus; Lewis Ritchie; Chris Robertson; John Robertson; Jose Robles-Zurita; Joseph Sarvesvaran; Herbert Sewell; Michael Sproule; Thomas Taylor; Agnes Tello; Shaun Treweek; Kavita Vedhara; Stuart Schembri
Journal:  Eur Respir J       Date:  2021-01-14       Impact factor: 16.671

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.