Start Your Search
MA20 - Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening (ID 923)
- Event: WCLC 2018
- Type: Mini Oral Abstract Session
- Track: Screening and Early Detection
- Presentations: 1
- Coordinates: 9/25/2018, 15:15 - 16:45, Room 206 F
MA20.01 - Lung Cancer Screenee Selection by USPSTF versus PLCOm2012 Criteria – Preliminary ILST Findings (ID 14331)
15:15 - 15:20 | Author(s): Paul Burrowes
The National Lung Screening Trial showed that lung cancer screening of high-risk individuals with low dose computed tomography can reduce lung cancer mortality by 20%. Critically important is enrolling high-risk individuals. Most current guidelines including the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recommend screening using variants of the NLST eligibility criteria: smoking ≥30 pack-years, smoking within 15 years, and age 55-80 and 55-77 years. Many studies indicate that using accurate risk prediction models is superior for selecting individuals for screening, but these findings are based on retrospective analyses. The International Lung Screen Trial(ILST) was implemented to prospectively identify which approach is superior.
ILST is a multi-centred trial enrolling 4000 participants. Individuals will be offered screening if they are USPSTF criteria positive or have PLCOm2012 model 6-year risk ≥1.5%. Participants will receive two annual screens and will be followed for six years for lung cancer outcomes. Individuals not qualifying by either criteria will not be offered screening, but samples of them will be followed for lung cancer outcomes. Outcomes in discordant groups, USPSTF+ve/PLCOm2012-ve and USPSTF-ve/PLCOm2012+ve, are informative. Numbers of lung cancers, abnormal suspicious for lung cancer scans (a marker of future lung cancers) and individuals enrolled, and sensitivity and specificity and positive predictive values of the two criteria will be compared.4c3880bb027f159e801041b1021e88e8 Result
As of March 2018, ILST centers in Canada (British Columbia and Alberta), Australia, and the United Kingdom had enrolled and scanned 1938 individuals. Study results are summarized in Figure 1.
Interim analysis of ILST data, suggests that classification accuracy of lung cancer screening outcomes support the PLCOm2012 criteria over the USPSTF criteria. Individuals who are USPSTF+ve and PLCOm2012-ve appear to be at such low baseline risk (0.46%) that they may be unlikely to benefit from screening.6f8b794f3246b0c1e1780bb4d4d5dc53
Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.
P1.11 - Screening and Early Detection (Not CME Accredited Session) (ID 943)
- Event: WCLC 2018
- Type: Poster Viewing in the Exhibit Hall
- Presentations: 1
- Coordinates: 9/24/2018, 16:45 - 18:00, Exhibit Hall
P1.11-15 - Application of Lung-RADS vs. PAN-CAN Nodule Risk Calculation in the Alberta Lung Cancer Screening Study (ID 13052)
16:45 - 18:00 | Author(s): Paul Burrowes
False positive or negative examinations and high early recall rates are important factors in the performance of lung cancer screening programs. How low-dose chest tomography (LDCT) scans are interpreted and classified may impact these metrics.a9ded1e5ce5d75814730bb4caaf49419 Method
LDCT examinations for participants in the Alberta Lung Cancer Screening Study (ALCSS) were interpreted by chest radiologist with information entered in a synoptic report. Baseline scans were classified according to highest risk of malignancy nodule as per the PAN-CAN nodule risk calculator (NRC) and according to the Lung-RADS scheme. A positive scan was any baseline LDCT requiring any intervention beyond an annual screening examination (NRC nodule with ≥5% malignancy risk; Lung-RADS category ≥3). In the calculation of sensitivity, false negative scans could include reader error or classification errors (NRC <5% or Lung-RADS <3 but cancer present regardless of perceived appropriateness of resulting management).4c3880bb027f159e801041b1021e88e8 Result
Seven hundred and seventy-six participants in the ALCSS underwent LDCT screening and had no prior chest CT imaging on file. Median follow-up was 572 days (+/-205) with lung cancer confirmed in 16 (2.1%) participants. The early recall rate was 9.0% for NRC and 11.2% for Lung-RADS (p=0.044), with fair concordance between each approach (kappa 0.554). Sensitivity for malignancy was 87.5% vs. 87.5% (difference 0%, 95%CI -0.44%-0.44%) and specificity 92.6% vs. 90.4% (difference 2.2%, 95%CI 0.2%-4.3%) for NRC and Lung-RADS respectively. False negative screens were due to reader error (same case in both systems); and classification error (one different case for each system).
Performance of both the NRC and Lung-RADS in the ALCSS was very good, with NRC resulting in a lower early recall rate. Application of the NRC demonstrated increased specificity over Lung-RADS without a change in sensitivity for lung cancer detection. Lung cancer program performance may be improved with the use of the PAN-CAN NRC classification.6f8b794f3246b0c1e1780bb4d4d5dc53