Dataset Information

Interval lung cancers not detected on screening chest X-rays: How are they different?

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Kvale PA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4232302 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Interval lung cancers not detected on screening chest X-rays: How are they different?

Kvale Paul A PA Johnson Christine Cole CC Tammemägi Martin M Marcus Pamela M PM Zylak Carl J CJ Spizarny David L DL Hocking William W Oken Martin M Commins John J Ragard Lawrence L Hu Ping P Berg Christine C Prorok Philip P

Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 20140724 1

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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 tho ...[more]

PMID: 25123333

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Case-control studies show that mammographic density is a better risk factor when defined at higher than conventional pixel-brightness thresholds. We asked if this applied to interval and/or screen-detected cancers. METHOD:We conducted a nested case-control study within the prospective Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study including 168 women with interval and 422 with screen-detected breast cancers, and 498 and 1197 matched controls, respectively. We measured absolute and percent mammographic density using the Cumulus software at the conventional threshold (Cumulus) and two increasingly higher thresholds (Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus, respectively). Measures were transformed and adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI). Using conditional logistic regression and adjusting for BMI by age at mammogram, we estimated risk discrimination by the odds ratio per adjusted standard deviation (OPERA), calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared nested models using the likelihood ratio criterion and models with the same number of parameters using the difference in Bayesian information criterion (?BIC). RESULTS:For interval cancer, there was very strong evidence that the association was best predicted by Cumulus as a percentage (OPERA?=?2.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.85-2.92); all ?BIC >?14), and the association with BMI was independent of age at mammogram. After adjusting for percent Cumulus, no other measure was associated with risk (all P?>?0.1). For screen-detected cancer, however, the associations were strongest for the absolute and percent Cirrocumulus measures (all ?BIC >?6), and after adjusting for Cirrocumulus, no other measure was associated with risk (all P?>?0.07). CONCLUSION:The amount of brighter areas is the best mammogram-based measure of screen-detected breast cancer risk, while the percentage of the breast covered by white or bright areas is the best mammogram-based measure of interval breast cancer risk, irrespective of BMI. Therefore, there are different features of mammographic images that give clinically important information about different outcomes.

Dataset Information

Interval lung cancers not detected on screening chest X-rays: How are they different?

Publications

Interval lung cancers not detected on screening chest X-rays: How are they different?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets