Doubling times and CT screen–detected lung cancers in the Pittsburgh Lung Screening Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Rationale
As computed tomography (CT) screening for lung cancer becomes more widespread, volumetric analyses, including doubling times, of CT-screen detected lung nodules and lung cancers may provide useful information in the follow-up and management of CT-detected lung nodules and cancers.Objectives
To analyze doubling times in CT screen detected lung cancers and compare prevalent and nonprevalent cancers and different cell types on non small cell lung cancer.Methods
We performed volumetric and doubling time analysis on 63 non–small cell lung cancers detected as part of the Pittsburgh Lung Screening Study using a commercially available VITREA 2 workstation and VITREA VITAL nodule segmentation software.Measurements and main results
Doubling times (DT) were divided into three groups: rapid (DT<183 d), typical (DT 183–365 d), and slow (DT>365 d). Adenocarcinoma/bronchioloalveolar carcinoma comprised 86.7% of the slow DT group compared with 20% of the rapid DT group. Conversely, squamous cell cancer comprised 60% of the rapid DT group compared with 3.3% of the slow DT group. Twenty-eight of 42 (67%) prevalent and 2 of 21 (10%) nonprevalent cancers were in the slow DT group (P<0.0001; Fisher's exact test). Twenty-four of 32 (75%) prevalent and 1 of 11 (9%) nonprevalent adenocarcinomas were in the slow DT group (P<0.0002; Fisher's exact test).Conclusions
Volumetric analysis of CT-detected lung cancers is particularly useful in AC/BAC. Prevalent cancers have a significantly slower DT than nonprevalent cancers and a higher percentage of adenocarcinoma/bronchioloalveolar carcinoma. These results should affect the management of indeterminant lung nodules detected on screening CT scans.
SUBMITTER: Wilson DO
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3262038 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundImage-based biomarkers could have translational implications by characterizing tumor behavior of lung cancers diagnosed during lung cancer screening. In this study, peritumoral and intratumoral radiomics and volume doubling time (VDT) were used to identify high-risk subsets of lung patients diagnosed in lung cancer screening that are associated with poor survival outcomes.MethodsData and images were acquired from the National Lung Screening Trial. VDT was calculated between two consequent screening intervals approximately 1 year apart; peritumoral and intratumoral radiomics were extracted from the baseline screen. Overall survival (OS) was the main endpoint. Classification and Regression Tree analyses identified the most predictive covariates to classify patient outcomes.ResultsDecision tree analysis stratified patients into three risk-groups (low, intermediate, and high) based on VDT and one radiomic feature (compactness). High-risk patients had extremely poor survival outcomes (hazard ratio [HR] = 8.15; 25% 5-year OS) versus low-risk patients (HR = 1.00; 83.3% 5-year OS). Among early-stage lung cancers, high-risk patients had poor survival outcomes (HR = 9.07; 44.4% 5-year OS) versus the low-risk group (HR = 1.00; 90.9% 5-year OS). For VDT, the decision tree analysis identified a novel cut-point of 279 days and using this cut-point VDT alone discriminated between aggressive (HR = 4.18; 45% 5-year OS) versus indolent/low-risk cancers (HR = 1.00; 82.8% 5-year OS).ConclusionWe utilized peritumoral and intratumoral radiomic features and VDT to generate a model that identify a high-risk group of screen-detected lung cancers associated with poor survival outcomes. These vulnerable subset of screen-detected lung cancers may be candidates for more aggressive surveillance/follow-up and treatment, such as adjuvant therapy.
| S-EPMC9310661 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lung cancer screening identifies cancers with heterogeneous behaviors. Some lung cancers will be identified among patients who had prior negative CT screens and upon follow-up scans develop a de novo nodule that was determined to be cancerous. Other lung cancers will be identified among patients who had one or more prior stable positive scans that were not determined to be lung cancer (indeterminate pulmonary nodules), but in follow-up scans was diagnosed with an incidence lung cancer. Using data from the CT arm of the National Lung Screening Trial, this analysis investigated differences in patient characteristics and survival endpoints between prevalence-, interval-, and screen-detected lung cancers, characterized based on sequence of screening results. Lung cancers immediately following a positive baseline (T0), and prior to the T1 screen, formed the prevalence cohort. Interval cancers were diagnosed following a negative screen at any time point prior to the next screening round. Two cohorts of screen-detected lung cancers (SDLC) were identified that had a baseline positive screen that was that was not determined to be lung cancer (i.e., an indeterminate pulmonary nodule), but in follow-up scans was diagnosed with an incidence lung cancer 12 (SDLC1) or 24 (SDLC2) months later. Two other incidence cohorts had screen-detected lung cancers that had baseline negative screen and upon follow-up scans developed a de novo nodule determined to be cancerous at 12 (SDLC3) or 24 (SDLC4) months later. Differences in patient characteristics, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed. The lung cancer-specific death rate was higher for SDLC3/SDLC4 compared to SDLC1/SDLC2 lung cancers (136.6/1,000 person-years vs. 71.3/1,000 person-years, P < 0.001). Moreover, PFS and OS were significantly lower for SDLC3/SDLC4 compared to SDLC1/SDLC2 (P < 0.004; P < 0.002, respectively). The findings were consistent when stratified by stage and histology. Multivariable Cox proportional models revealed that the SDLC3/SDLC4 case groups were associated with significantly poorer PFS (HR = 1.89; 95% CI 1.31-2.74) and OS (HR = 1.80; 95% CI 1.21-2.67) compared to SDLC1/SDLC2 lung cancers (HR = 1.00). Lung cancer patients who develop a de novo nodule that determined to be cancerous (i.e., at least one negative CT screen prior to cancer diagnosis) had poorer survival outcomes compared to patients who had at least one positive screen prior to cancer diagnosis. As such, the observation that de novo screen-detected are associated with poorer survival could be attributed to faster growing, more aggressive cancers that arose from a lung environment previously lacking focal abnormalities.
| S-EPMC4980050 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the morphology, radiological stage, conspicuity, and computer-assisted detection (CAD) characteristics of colorectal cancers (CRC) detected by computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in screening and symptomatic populations.MethodsTwo radiologists independently analyzed CTC images from 133 patients diagnosed with CRC in (a) two randomized trials of symptomatic patients (35 patients with 36 tumours) and (b) a screening program using fecal occult blood testing (FOBt; 98 patients with 100 tumours), measuring tumour length, volume, morphology, radiological stage, and subjective conspicuity. A commercial CAD package was applied to both datasets. We compared CTC characteristics between screening and symptomatic populations with multivariable regression.ResultsScreen-detected CRC were significantly smaller (mean 3.0 vs 4.3 cm, p?<?0.001), of lower volume (median 9.1 vs 23.2 cm3, p?<?0.001) and more frequently polypoid (34/100, 34 % vs. 5/36, 13.9 %, p?=?0.02) than symptomatic CRC. They were of earlier stage than symptomatic tumours (OR?=?0.17, 95 %CI 0.07-0.41, p?<?0.001), and were judged as significantly less conspicuous (mean conspicuity 54.1/100 vs. 72.8/100, p?<?0.001). CAD detection was significantly lower for screen-detected (77.4 %; 95 %CI 67.9-84.7 %) than symptomatic CRC (96.9 %; 95 %CI 83.8-99.4 %, p?=?0.02).ConclusionsScreen-detected CRC are significantly smaller, more frequently polypoid, subjectively less conspicuous, and less likely to be identified by CAD than those in symptomatic patients.Key points• Screen-detected colorectal cancers (CRC) are significantly smaller than symptomatic CRC. • Screening cases are significantly less conspicuous to radiologists than symptomatic tumours. • Screen-detected CRC have different morphology compared to symptomatic tumours (more polypoid, fewer annular). • A commercial computer-aided detection (CAD) system was significantly less likely to note screen-detected CRC.
| S-EPMC5101282 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) offers biennial faecal occult blood testing (FOBt) followed by colonoscopy after positive results. Colorectal cancers (CRCs) registered with the Northern Colorectal Cancer Audit Group database were cross-referenced with the BCSP database to analyse their screening history. METHODS: The CRCs in the screening population between April 2007 and March 2010 were identified and classified into four groups: control (diagnosed before first screening invite), screen-detected, interval (diagnosed between screening rounds after a negative FOBt), and non-uptake (declined screening). Patient demographics, tumour characteristics and survival were compared between groups. RESULTS: In all, 511 out of 1336 (38.2%) CRCs were controls; 825 (61.8%) were in individuals invited for screening of which 322 (39.0%) were screen detected, 311 (37.7%) were in the non-uptake group, and 192 (23.3%) were interval cancers. Compared with the control and interval cancer group, the screen-detected group had a higher proportion of men (P=0.002, P=0.003 respectively), left colon tumours (P=0.007, P=0.003), and superior survival (both P<0.001). There was no difference in demographics, tumour location/stage, or survival between control and interval groups. CONCLUSION: The FOBt is better at detecting cancers in the left colon and in men. The significant numbers of interval cancers weren't found to have an improved outcome compared with the non-screened population.
| S-EPMC3405230 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies with a limited number of patients have reported divergent findings on whether screening can detect small cell lung cancer (SCLC) at an earlier stage and whether there might be a survival benefit.MethodsThis study examined the characteristics of SCLC detected by using low-dose CT (LDCT) screening in the National Lung Screening Trial, a randomized study of individuals at high risk for developing lung cancer comparing LDCT imaging vs chest radiography. SCLC was denoted as screen detected if diagnosed ? 1 year of a positive screen or after a longer period but with no time gap between diagnostic procedures of > 1 year; interval detected if diagnosed ? 1 year of a negative screen; and nonscreen detected if the subject did not receive any screens or otherwise as postscreening.ResultsA total of 143 cases of SCLC were diagnosed, including 49 (34.2%) screen detected, 15 (10.5%) interval detected, and 79 (55.2%) nonscreened/postscreening. Of the screening phase-diagnosed cases (ie, screen or interval detected), a higher proportion of SCLC cases compared with NSCLC cases were interval detected (23% vs 5%; P < .0001). A higher proportion of all SCLC cases compared with NSCLC cases were advanced stage (III/IV: 86% vs 36%; P < .0001). The unfavorable SCLC stage distribution extended across screen-detected (80% stage III/IV), interval-detected (86%), and nonscreened/postscreening (90%) cancers. Among screen-detected SCLC, only 63.3% had ? 1 noncalcified nodule in the cancer lobe compared with 85.4% of NSCLC cases (P < .0001). Even with very small LDCT screen-detected nodules, a high proportion of SCLC cases were late stage. There was no significant difference in survival between screen- and interval-detected or postscreening SCLC.Conclusions"Early detection" with the use of LDCT imaging had no impact on SCLC outcomes. A successful screening modality should ideally detect SCLC earlier than when it can be detected on LDCT scans.
| S-EPMC6335258 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It is currently not known whether most lung cancers detected by computerized tomography (CT) screening are aggressive and likely to be fatal if left untreated, or if a sizable fraction are indolent and unlikely to cause death during the natural lifetime of the individual. We developed a longitudinal biologically-based model of the relationship between individual smoking histories and the probability for lung cancer incidence, CT screen detection, lung cancer mortality, and other-cause mortality. The longitudinal model relates these different outcomes to an underlying lung cancer disease pathway and an effective other-cause mortality pathway, which are both influenced by the individual smoking history. The longitudinal analysis provides additional information over that available if these outcomes were analyzed separately, including testing if the number of CT detected and histologically-confirmed lung cancers is consistent with the expected number of lung cancers "in the pipeline". We assume indolent nodules undergo Gompertz growth and are detectable by CT, but do not grow large enough to contribute significantly to symptom-based lung cancer incidence or mortality. Likelihood-based model calibration was done jointly to data from 6878 heavy smokers without asbestos exposure in the control (placebo) arm of the Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET); and to 3,642 heavy smokers with comparable smoking histories in the Pittsburgh Lung Screening Study (PLuSS), a single-arm prospective trial of low-dose spiral CT screening for diagnosis of lung cancer. Model calibration was checked using data from two other single-arm prospective CT screening trials, the New York University Lung Cancer Biomarker Center (NYU) (n=1,021), and Moffitt Cancer Center (Moffitt) cohorts (n=677). In the PLuSS cohort, we estimate that at the end of year 2, after the baseline and first annual CT exam, that 33.0 (26.9, 36.9)% of diagnosed lung cancers among females and 7.0 (4.9,11.7)% among males were overdiagnosed due to being indolent cancers. At the end of the PLuSS study, with maximum follow-up of 5.8 years, we estimate that due to early detection by CT and limited follow-up, an additional 2.2 (2.0,2.4)% of all diagnosed cancers among females and 7.1 (6.7,8.0)% among males would not have been diagnosed in the absence of CT screening. We also find a higher apparent cure rate for lung cancer among CARET females than males, consistent with the larger indolent fraction of CT detected and histologically confirmed lung cancers among PLuSS females. This suggests that there are significant gender differences in the aggressiveness of lung cancer. Females may have an inherently higher proportion of indolent lung cancers than males, or aggressive lung cancers may be brought into check by the immune system more frequently among females than males.
| S-EPMC3412888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe issue of overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening trials could be addressed by the development of complementary biomarkers able to improve detection of aggressive disease. The mutation profile of LDCT screening-detected lung tumors is currently unknown.MethodsTargeted next-generation sequencing was performed on 94 LDCT screening-detected lung tumors. Associations with clinicopathologic features, survival, and the risk profile of a plasma microRNA signature classifier were analyzed.ResultsThe mutational spectrum and frequency observed in screening series was similar to that reported in public data sets, although a larger number of tumors without mutations in driver genes was detected. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates of patients with and without mutations in the tumors were 66% and 100%, respectively (p = 0.015). By combining the mutational status with the microRNA signature classifier risk profile, patients were stratified into three groups with 5-year OS rates ranging from 42% to 97% (p < 0.0001) and the prognostic value was significant after controlling for stage (p = 0.02).ConclusionTumor mutational status along with a microRNA-based liquid biopsy can provide additional information in planning clinical follow-up in lung cancer LDCT screening programs.
| S-EPMC6832691 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has replaced screen-film mammography (SFM) in most breast cancer screening programs due to technological advantages such as possibilities to adjust contrast, better image quality and transfer capabilities. This study describes the performance indicators during the transition from SFM to FFDM and the characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers.Data of the Dutch breast cancer screening program, region North from 2004 to 2010 were linked to The Netherlands Cancer Registry (N=902 868). Performance indicators and tumour characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers were compared between FFDM and SFM.After initial screens, recall rates were 2.1% (SFM) and 3.0% (FFDM; P<0.001). The positive predictive values (PPV) were 25.6% (SFM) and 19.9% (FFDM; P=0.002). Detection rates were similar, as were all performance indicators after subsequent screens. Similar percentages of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were found for SFM and FFDM. Invasive cancers diagnosed after subsequent screens with FFDM were more often of high-grade (P=0.024) and ductal type (P=0.030). The incidence rates of interval cancers were similar for SFM and FFDM after initial (2.69/1000 vs 2.51/1000; P=0.787) and subsequent screens (2.30 vs 2.41; P=0.652), with similar tumour characteristics.FFDM resulted in similar rates of screen-detected and interval cancers, indicating that FFDM performs as well as SFM in a breast cancer screening program. No signs of an increase in low-grade DCIS (which might connote possible overdiagnosis) were seen. Nonetheless, after initial screening, which accounts for 12% of all screens, FFDM resulted in higher recall rate and lower PPV that requires attention.
| S-EPMC4997549 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionAlthough three randomized control trials have proven mortality benefit of CT lung cancer screening (CTLS), <5% of eligible US smokers are screened. Some attribute this to fear of harm conveyed at shared decision visits, including the harm of overdiagnosis/overtreatment of indolent BAC-like adenocarcinoma.MethodsSince the frequency of indolent cancers has not been compared between CTLS and routinely detected cohorts, we compare pathology and RNA expression of 86 NCCN high-risk CTLS subjects to 83 high-risk (HR-R) and 51 low-risk (LR-R) routinely detected patients. Indolent adenocarcinoma was defined as previously described for low malignant potential (LMP) adenocarcinoma along with AIS/MIA. Exome RNA sequencing was performed on a subset of high-risk (CTLS and HR-R) FFPE tumor samples.ResultsIndolent adenocarcinoma (AIS, MIA, and LMP) showed 100% disease-specific survival (DSS) with similar frequency in CTLS (18%) and HR-R (20%) which were comparatively lower than LR-R (33%). Despite this observation, CTLS exhibited intermediate DSS between HR-R and LR-R (5-year DSS: 88% CTLS, 82% HR-R, & 95% LR-R, p = 0.047), possibly reflecting a 0.4 cm smaller median tumor size and lower frequency of tumor necrosis compared to HR-R. WGCNA gene modules derived from TCGA lung adenocarcinoma correlated with aggressive histologic patterns, mitotic activity, and tumor invasive features, but no significant differential expression between CTLS and HR-R was observed.ConclusionCTLS subjects are at no greater risk of overdiagnosis from indolent adenocarcinoma (AIS, MIA, and LMP) than risk-matched patients whose cancers are discovered in routine clinical practice. Improved outcomes likely reflect detection and treatment at smaller size.
| S-EPMC8713084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial provides us an opportunity to describe interval lung cancers not detected by screening chest X-ray (CXR) compared to screen-detected cancers.Participants were screened for lung cancer with CXR at baseline and annually for two (never smokers) or three (ever smokers) more years. Screen-detected cancers were those with a positive CXR and diagnosed within 12 months. Putative interval cancers were those with a negative CXR screen but with a diagnosis of lung cancer within 12 months. Potential interval cancers were re-reviewed to determine whether lung cancer was missed and probably present during the initial interpretation or whether the lesion was a "true interval" cancer.77,445 participants were randomized to the intervention arm with 70,633 screened. Of 5227 positive screens from any screening round, 299 resulted in screen-detected lung cancers; 151 had potential interval cancers with 127 CXR available for re-review. Cancer was probably present in 45/127 (35.4%) at time of screening; 82 (64.6%) were "true interval" cancers. Compared to screen-detected cancers, true interval cancers were more common among males, persons with <12 years education and those with a history of smoking. True interval lung cancers were more often small cell, 28.1% vs. 7.4%, and less often adenocarcinoma, 25.6% vs. 56.2% (p<0.001), more advanced stage IV (30.5% vs. 16.6%, p<0.02), and less likely to be in the right upper lobe, 17.1% vs. 36.1% (p<0.02).True interval lung cancers differ from CXR-screen-detected cancers with regard to demographic variables, stage, cell type and location. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00002540.
| S-EPMC4232302 | biostudies-literature