Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients with COPD have increased peripheral airway resistance. In this study, increased peripheral airway resistance was strongly associated with a reduction in the number of terminal bronchioles rather than narrowing of airways. Direct measurement of the distribution of resistance in the lower respiratory tract has established that small airways (i.e., <2 mm in internal diameter) become the major sites of obstruction in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). 1 – 3 Resistance to flow through tubes is inversely related to the reduction in the radius raised to the fourth to fifth power. Since loss of half of such airways will only double the total peripheral resistance because of their parallel arrangement, 4 the increase in peripheral airway resistance by a factor of 4 to 40, as has been reported in patients with COPD, 1 is . . .

Computed tomography (CT) has been shown to reliably measure the airway wall dimensions of medium to large airways. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a promising new micron-scale resolution imaging technique that can image small airways 2 mm in diameter or less. To correlate OCT measurements of airway dimensions with measurements assessed using CT scans and lung function. Forty-four current and former smokers received spirometry, CT scans, and OCT imaging at the time of bronchoscopy. Specific bronchial segments were identified and measured using the OCT images and three-dimensional reconstructions of the bronchial tree using CT. There was a strong correlation between CT and OCT measurements of lumen and wall area (r = 0.84, P < 0.001, and r = 0.89, P < 0.001, respectively). Compared with CT, OCT measurements were lower for both lumen and wall area by 31 and 66%, respectively. The correlation between FEV(1)% predicted and CT and OCT measured wall area (as percentage of the total area) of fifth-generation airways was very strong (r = -0.79, r = -0.75), but the slope of the relationship was much steeper using OCT than using CT (y = -0.33x + 82, y = -0.1x + 78), indicating greater sensitivity of OCT in detecting changes in wall measurements that relate to FEV(1). OCT can be used to measure airway wall dimensions. OCT may be more sensitive at detecting small airway wall changes that lead to FEV(1) changes in individuals with obstructive airway disease.

ObjectivesThe impact of lung cancer screening with low-dose chest CT (LDCT) on participants’ anxiety levels and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important consideration in the implementation of such programmes. We aimed to describe changes in anxiety and HRQoL in a high-risk Canadian cohort undergoing LDCT lung cancer screening.Methods2537 subjects who had 2% or greater lung cancer risk over 6 years using a risk prediction tool were recruited from eight centres across Canada in the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study (2008–2010). We compared HRQoL and anxiety levels before and after screening of 1237 participants with LDCT (excluding a subset of 1300 participants who also underwent autofluorescence bronchoscopy screening), as well as after investigations performed because of a positive screening examination. The 12-item short-form Physical and Mental Component Scales (SF-12), EQ-5D-3L scores and State Trait Anxiety Inventory-State anxiety were used at each assessment.ResultsOverall, there were no clinically significant differences in HRQoL outcomes between baseline and each of the survey time points following initial screening. No mean change in anxiety in the overall cohort was noted following baseline LDCT, but more participants had clinically significant increase in anxiety versus decrease after baseline screening (increase >minimal clinically important difference (MCID) (n=180) vs decrease >MCID (n=50), p<0.001). This finding persisted but to a lesser degree at the 12 month time point (increase >MCID (n=146) vs decrease >MCID (n=87), p<0.001).ConclusionsCT screening for lung cancer has no major overall impact on HRQoL among participants, although a minority of participants (number-needed-to-harm=7 after baseline screening and 18 at 1 year) demonstrated clinically significant increased anxiety levels.Trialregistration number NCT00751660; Results.

Lung cancer screening of high-risk individuals with computed tomography is a promising intervention to reduce lung cancer mortality. Patient Decision Aids (PtDAs) may assist eligible individuals assess the risks and benefits associated with screening. Screening preference is high among lower-risk, screening-ineligible individuals and strategies are needed to reduce screening demand among this group. We developed and evaluated a resource comprising a recruitment pamphlet combined with either a PtDA for screening-eligible individuals or an education pamphlet for screening-ineligible individuals. Quasi-experimental pre-post pamphlet exposure design. Ever-smokers aged 55–80 years attending hospital outpatient clinics were invited. Among screening-eligible participants, the assessed outcome was change in score on the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Among screening-ineligible participants, the assessed outcomes were change in screening preference. In the study 51% (55/107) of invited individuals participated, with mean ± standard deviation age 66.9 ± 6.4 years, 53% (29/55) male, and 65% (36/55) eligible for screening. Median (interquartile range) DCS among screening-eligible participants reduced from 28.9 (22.7–45.3) pre-PtDA to 25 (1.6–29.7) post-PtDA (p < .001), but there was no significant change in the proportion that reached the accepted threshold for decisional certainty (DCS < 25, 10/36 [28%] pre-exposure vs. 14/36 [39%] post-exposure, p = .1). Screening preference among screening-ineligible individuals reduced after viewing the screening-ineligible brochure (pre-exposure median of “Prefer” to post-exposure median of “Unsure,” p = .001). Our consumer information pamphlets about lung cancer screening may reduce decisional conflict and improve alignment of screening preference with eligibility.

Lung cancer is a major health problem. CT lung screening can reduce lung cancer mortality through early diagnosis by at least 20%. Screening high-risk individuals is most effective. Retrospective analyses suggest that identifying individuals for screening by accurate prediction models is more efficient than using categorical age-smoking criteria, such as the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. This study prospectively compared the effectiveness of the USPSTF2013 and PLCOm2012 model eligibility criteria. In this prospective cohort study, participants from the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST), aged 55–80 years, who were current or former smokers (ie, had ≥30 pack-years smoking history or ≤15 quit-years since last permanently quitting), and who met USPSTF2013 criteria or a PLCOm2012 risk threshold of at least 1·51% within 6 years of screening, were recruited from nine screening sites in Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, and the UK. After enrolment, patients were assessed with the USPSTF2013 criteria and the PLCOm2012 risk model with a threshold of at least 1·70% at 6 years. Data were collected locally and centralised. Main outcomes were the comparison of lung cancer detection rates and cumulative life expectancies in patients with lung cancer between USPSTF2013 criteria and the PLCOm2012 model. In this Article, we present data from an interim analysis. To estimate the incidence of lung cancers in individuals who were USPSTF2013-negative and had PLCOm2012 of less than 1·51% at 6 years, ever-smokers in the Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) who met these criteria and their lung cancer incidence were applied to the ILST sample size for the mean follow-up occurring in the ILST. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02871856. Study enrolment is almost complete. Between June 17, 2015, and Dec 29, 2020, 5819 participants from the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST) were enrolled on the basis of meeting USPSTF2013 criteria or the PLCOm2012 risk threshold of at least 1·51% at 6 years. The same number of individuals was selected for the PLCOm2012 model as for the USPSTF2013 criteria (4540 [78%] of 5819). After a mean follow-up of 2·3 years (SD 1·0), 135 lung cancers occurred in 4540 USPSTF2013-positive participants and 162 in 4540 participants included in the PLCOm2012 of at least 1·70% at 6 years group (cancer sensitivity difference 15·8%, 95% CI 10·7–22·1%; absolute odds ratio 4·00, 95% CI 1·89–9·44; p<0·0001). Compared to USPSTF2013-positive individuals, PLCOm2012-selected participants were older (mean age 65·7 years [SD 5·9] vs 63·3 years [5·7]; p<0·0001), had more comorbidities (median 2 [IQR 1–3] vs 1 [1–2]; p<0·0001), and shorter life expectancy (13·9 years [95% CI 12·8–14·9] vs 14·8 [13·6–16·0] years). Model-based difference in cumulative life expectancies for those diagnosed with lung cancer were higher in those who had PLCOm2012 risk of at least 1·70% at 6 years than individuals who were USPSTF2013-positive (2248·6 years [95% CI 2089·6–2425·9] vs 2000·7 years [1841·2–2160·3]; difference 247·9 years, p=0·015). PLCOm2012 appears to be more efficient than the USPSTF2013 criteria for selecting individuals to enrol into lung cancer screening programmes and should be used for identifying high-risk individuals who benefit from the inclusion in these programmes. Terry Fox Research Institute, The UBC-VGH Hospital Foundation and the BC Cancer Foundation, the Alberta Cancer Foundation, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK and a consortium of funders, and the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation for the UK Lung Screen Uptake Trial.

Using data from two large data sets of lung-cancer screening by CT, the authors identified factors that increased the likelihood that a nodule was malignant, including older age, female sex, nodule location in the upper lobe, lower nodule count, and certain nodule features. The U.S. National Lung Screening Trial showed that screening with the use of low-dose thoracic computed tomography (CT) reduces mortality from lung cancer by 20%. 1 Major clinical issues in the implementation of low-dose CT screening at the population level include the definition of a positive screening result and the appropriate management of lung nodules detected on a scan. More than 20% of participants in low-dose CT screening programs were found on their first scan to have one or more lung nodules that required further investigation. 1 – 4 The proportion of invasive diagnostic procedures ranged from 1 to 4%. 1 , 3 The risk . . .

Background Evaluation of psychosocial consequences of lung cancer screening with LDCT in high-risk populations has generally been performed using generic psychometric instruments. Such generic instruments have low coverage and low power to detect screening impacts. This study aims to validate an established lung cancer screening-specific questionnaire, Consequences Of Screening Lung Cancer (COS-LC), in Australian-English and describe early results from the baseline LDCT round of the International Lung Screen Trial (ILST). Methods The Danish-version COS-LC was translated to Australian-English using the double panel method and field tested in Australian-ILST participants to examine content validity. A random sample of 200 participants were used to assess construct validity using Rasch item response theory models. Reliability was assessed using classical test theory. The COS-LC was administered to ILST participants at prespecified timepoints including at enrolment, dependent of screening results. Results Minor linguistic alterations were made after initial translation of COS-LC to English. The COS-LC demonstrated good content validity and adequate construct validity using psychometric analysis. The four core scales fit the Rasch model, with only minor issues in five non-core scales which resolved with modification. 1129 Australian-ILST participants were included in the analysis, with minimal psychosocial impact observed shortly after baseline LDCT results. Conclusion COS-LC is the first lung cancer screening-specific questionnaire to be validated in Australia and has demonstrated excellent psychometric properties. Early results did not demonstrate significant psychosocial impacts of screening. Longer-term follow-up is awaited and will be particularly pertinent given the announcement of an Australian National Lung Cancer Screening Program. Trial registration NCT02871856.

Background Research from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) demonstrates that international variation in lung cancer survival persists, particularly within early stage disease. There is a lack of international consensus on the critical contributing components to variation in lung cancer outcomes and the steps needed to optimise lung cancer services. These are needed to improve the quality of options for and equitable access to treatment, and ultimately improve survival. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 9 key informants from ICBP countries. An international clinical network representing 6 ICBP countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, Ireland, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales) was established to share local clinical insights and examples of best practice. Using a modified Delphi consensus model, network members suggested and rated recommendations to optimise the management of lung cancer. Calls to Action were developed via Delphi voting as the most crucial recommendations, with Good Practice Points included to support their implementation. Results Five Calls to Action and thirteen Good Practice Points applicable to high income, comparable countries were developed and achieved 100% consensus. Calls to Action include (1) Implement cost-effective, clinically efficacious, and equitable lung cancer screening initiatives; (2) Ensure diagnosis of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; (3) Develop Thoracic Centres of Excellence; (4) Undertake an international audit of lung cancer care; and (5) Recognise improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes as a priority in cancer policy. Conclusion The recommendations presented are the voice of an expert international lung cancer clinical network, and signpost key considerations for policymakers in countries within the ICBP but also in other comparable high-income countries. These define a roadmap to help align and focus efforts in improving outcomes and management of lung cancer patients globally.

Results from retrospective studies indicate that selecting individuals for low-dose CT lung cancer screening on the basis of a highly predictive risk model is superior to using criteria similar to those used in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST; age, pack-year, and smoking quit-time). We designed the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer (PanCan) study to assess the efficacy of a risk prediction model to select candidates for lung cancer screening, with the aim of determining whether this approach could better detect patients with early, potentially curable, lung cancer. We did this single-arm, prospective study in eight centres across Canada. We recruited participants aged 50–75 years, who had smoked at some point in their life (ever-smokers), and who did not have a self-reported history of lung cancer. Participants had at least a 2% 6-year risk of lung cancer as estimated by the PanCan model, a precursor to the validated PLCOm2012 model. Risk variables in the model were age, smoking duration, pack-years, family history of lung cancer, education level, body-mass index, chest x-ray in the past 3 years, and history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Individuals were screened with low-dose CT at baseline (T0), and at 1 (T1) and 4 (T4) years post-baseline. The primary outcome of the study was incidence of lung cancer. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00751660. 7059 queries came into the study coordinating centre and were screened for PanCan risk. 15 were duplicates, so 7044 participants were considered for enrolment. Between Sept 24, 2008, and Dec 17, 2010, we recruited and enrolled 2537 eligible ever-smokers. After a median follow-up of 5·5 years (IQR 3·2–6·1), 172 lung cancers were diagnosed in 164 individuals (cumulative incidence 0·065 [95% CI 0·055–0·075], incidence rate 138·1 per 10 000 person-years [117·8–160·9]). There were ten interval lung cancers (6% of lung cancers and 6% of individuals with cancer): one diagnosed between T0 and T1, and nine between T1 and T4. Cumulative incidence was significantly higher than that observed in NLST (4·0%; p<0·0001). Compared with 593 (57%) of 1040 lung cancers observed in NLST, 133 (77%) of 172 lung cancers in the PanCan Study were early stage (I or II; p<0·0001). The PanCan model was effective in identifying individuals who were subsequently diagnosed with early, potentially curable, lung cancer. The incidence of cancers detected and the proportion of early stage cancers in the screened population was higher than observed in previous studies. This approach should be considered for adoption in lung cancer screening programmes. Terry Fox Research Institute and Canadian Partnership Against Cancer.

IntroductionLung cancer risk increases with time, and participants who are initially ineligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) could become eligible later. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of people (initially ineligible) who may become eligible in a risk model-based LCS programme and the impact smoking cessation could have on this cohort.MethodsAll potential participants for the International Lung Screening Trial aged 55–80 years, ineligible for Low-dose CT screening at baseline (PLCOm2012<1.5% 6-year risk), were included. Assuming annual increments of change in age, smoking duration and quit time, and under the assumption of other risk variables being constant, projections of risk were made using the PLCOm2012 model from evaluation to the upper age limit of 80 years.Results4451 subjects with a median age of 61 (IQR: 57–66) years were included. Assuming no change in smoking status post evaluation, 2239 participants (50.3%) became eligible (PLCOm2012≥1.51%) by age 80, with 26.9% and 38.7% of the cohort reaching eligibility by age 70 and 75 years, respectively. Among participants with a baseline risk≥0.6%, 1518 (34.1%) reached eligibility within 10 years of initial evaluation. Smoking cessation after first evaluation can reduce the proportion of individuals who may become eligible for LCS by age 70 from 68.7% to 24.9%.ConclusionsFuture risk projection of eligibility could provide a time window for reassessment of risk on an individual level. It is important to provide smoking cessation services to individuals who are ineligible for LCS at the initial programme contact.