Virtual Library
Start Your Search
Alain Tremblay
Author of
-
+
MA20 - Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening (ID 923)
- Event: WCLC 2018
- Type: Mini Oral Abstract Session
- Track: Screening and Early Detection
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- 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): Alain Tremblay
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background
Background
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.
a9ded1e5ce5d75814730bb4caaf49419 Method
Methods
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
Results
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.
8eea62084ca7e541d918e823422bd82e Conclusion
Conclusion
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.
6f8b794f3246b0c1e1780bb4d4d5dc53Only 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, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
P1.11 - Screening and Early Detection (Not CME Accredited Session) (ID 943)
- Event: WCLC 2018
- Type: Poster Viewing in the Exhibit Hall
- Track:
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- 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 | Presenting Author(s): Alain Tremblay
- Abstract
Background
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).
8eea62084ca7e541d918e823422bd82e ConclusionCancer +
Cancer -
Total
NRC +
14
56
70
NRC -
2
704
706
Lung-RADS +
14
73
87
Lung-RADS -
2
687
689
Total
16
760
776
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
-
+
P2.11 - Screening and Early Detection (Not CME Accredited Session) (ID 960)
- Event: WCLC 2018
- Type: Poster Viewing in the Exhibit Hall
- Track:
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 9/25/2018, 16:45 - 18:00, Exhibit Hall
-
+
P2.11-23 - Risk Perception Among a Lung Cancer Screening Population (ID 13045)
16:45 - 18:00 | Author(s): Alain Tremblay
- Abstract
Background
To make lung cancer screening feasible, populations with the highest risk of developing cancer need to be targeted. Furthermore, factors which motivate individuals to participate in lung cancer screening programs should be integrated into recruitment strategies. Among these motivators, an individual’s perception of their lung cancer risk is an important consideration. This paper analyzes factors associated with risk perception in subjects enrolled in the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study (PanCan), and assesses the relationship between subjects’ risk perception and actual calculated risk.
a9ded1e5ce5d75814730bb4caaf49419 Method
The PanCan low-dose screening CT study recruited individuals from the general population who were current or former smokers age 50-75 having at least a 2% risk of developing lung cancer over 6 years as calculated by the PanCan model. Risk perception was captured at baseline with a 5-point Likert scale question asking the subject to assess their personal chances of being diagnosed with lung cancer compared with other smokers of the same age. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between risk factors and risk perception. Baseline risk variables in the model include demographics, smoking history, symptoms, medications, occupation, previous chest imaging, history of COPD, medical comorbidities, and family history of cancer.
4c3880bb027f159e801041b1021e88e8 Result
2514 patients were included in the analysis. Median age was 62.3, 55.3% were male, median pack-year smoking history was 50 years (range 2.2-230), and median calculated lung cancer risk was 3.4% over 6 years (range 2-38.2). Calculated lung cancer risk increased by 0.08% (SE 0.02, p-value=0.001) for each increase in Likert risk perception category. On multivariable analysis, the following variables were associated with risk perception category: cigarettes smoked per day (+0.003 increase in category / cigarette, p=0.083), presence of dyspnea (+0.192), presence of wheeze (+0.272), known COPD (+0.110), no family history of cancer (-0.476) and no family history of lung cancer (-0.385) (all p<0.001). Increased perception of risk was associated with intent to quit smoking within 6 months (p<0.001).
8eea62084ca7e541d918e823422bd82e Conclusion
In this lung cancer screening study, risk perception was positively associated with calculated risk for lung cancer, despite a minimum 2% risk in the cohort. Individual factors and family history of cancer predicted risk perception. Risk perception was also associated with a willingness to quit smoking. Self-risk perception and associated factors could be used to tailor recruitment strategies to screening programs. The link between risk perception and willingness to quit smoking could aid integrated tobacco cessation programs.
6f8b794f3246b0c1e1780bb4d4d5dc53
-
+
P3.11 - Screening and Early Detection (Not CME Accredited Session) (ID 977)
- Event: WCLC 2018
- Type: Poster Viewing in the Exhibit Hall
- Track:
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 9/26/2018, 12:00 - 13:30, Exhibit Hall
-
+
P3.11-03 - Implementing Lung Cancer Screening in Canada: Evidence on Adherence and Budget Impact from the Pan-Canadian Early Detection Study (ID 13417)
12:00 - 13:30 | Author(s): Alain Tremblay
- Abstract
Background
High-risk lung cancer screening has favourable cost-effectiveness ratios; making it an attractive intervention for lung cancer control. Relatively little is known, however, about the implementation of lung cancer screening in universal health care systems. To address this, we characterize screening adherence rates in the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study (PanCan) and prepare a budget impact analysis for Canada.
a9ded1e5ce5d75814730bb4caaf49419 Method
We retrospectively characterized screening adherence to short-term (first-year) and long-term (year-four) annual screening rounds in the PanCan study and explored association with socio-demographic and screening characteristics with logistic regression models and Mann-Whitney rank sum and Chi square likelihood tests. We did a four-year budget impact analysis using published utilization rates for screening-related and incidental healthcare resources, smoking cessation, opportunistic screening and projected market dynamics for entrant treatments in Canada.
4c3880bb027f159e801041b1021e88e8 Result
The PanCan study screened 2537 participants with a baseline LDCT exam; of these, 2254 (88.9%) adhered to the second annual screening exam and 1,762 (69.5%) adhered to the year four exam. After adjusting for lung cancer incidences and other-cause mortality, we found significant associations between self-reported “current smoker” status and lower, second annual scan adherence rates (p<0.05); while variables related to the delivery of the intervention—such as the use of screening autofluorescence bronchoscopy and finding a lung nodule on the baseline LDCT—were significantly associated with greater adherence (p<0.05). Adherence to year-four screening exams was positively associated with age, family history of lung cancer, baseline quality of life and prior screening exam adherence (all p<0.05). Non-adherence was significantly associated with participants who had greater than 100 pack-years of smoking history and a lower level of formal education (p<0.05). Compared to participants who adhered to their scheduled, year-four annual screening exams, non-adherent participants had a higher predicted risk of developing lung cancer at baseline (p<0.05). The budget impact analysis indicates that the incremental program costs for screening an estimated 257, 914 eligible, high-risk, Canadians would be highly favourable compared to selection based on age and smoking history alone. The budget impact was also sensitive to uncertainty around the cost to treat actionable incidental findings and the adoption of entrant systemic therapy drugs.
8eea62084ca7e541d918e823422bd82e Conclusion
Study participants who were at the highest risk of developing lung cancer, were the least likely to adhere to screening. Using risk selection would enable affordable programs; however, programs may be compromised by barriers to participation for individuals who are at the greatest risk of developing lung cancer.
6f8b794f3246b0c1e1780bb4d4d5dc53
