Dataset Information

LUCSO-1-French pilot study of LUng Cancer Screening with low-dose computed tomography in a smokers population exposed to Occupational lung carcinogens: study protocol.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Guidelines concerning the follow-up of subjects occupationally exposed to lung carcinogens, published in France in 2015, recommended the setting up of a trial of low-dose chest CT lung cancer screening in subjects at high risk of lung cancer. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the organisation of low-dose chest CT lung cancer screening in subjects occupationally exposed to lung carcinogens and at high risk of lung cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This trial will be conducted in eight French departments by six specialised reference centres (SRCs) in occupational health. In view of the exploratory nature of this trial, it is proposed to test initially the feasibility and acceptability over the first 2?years in only two SRCs then in four other SRCs to evaluate the organisation. The target population is current or former smokers with more than 30 pack-years (who have quit smoking for less than 15 years), currently or previously exposed to International Agency for Research on Cancer group 1 lung carcinogens, and between the ages of 55 and 74 years. The trial will be conducted in the following steps: (1) identification of subjects by a screening invitation letter; (2) evaluation of occupational exposure to lung carcinogens; (3) evaluation of the lung cancer risk level and verification of eligibility; (4) screening procedure: annual chest CT scans performed by specialised centres and (5) follow-up of CT scan abnormalities. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This protocol study has been approved by the French Committee for the Protection of Persons. The results from this study will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and reported at suitable national and international meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03562052; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Delva F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6475342 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo demonstrate that urine cytology screening can provide relevant epidemiological data for earlier detection of urothelial cancer caused by occupational exposure.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingIndustries using urothelial carcinogens in France. Urine samples were collected on site, after a work week and were analysed at the University Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand, France.ParticipantsParticipants were workers exposed to urothelial carcinogens. Women and current smokers at time of study recruitment were exclusion criteria.OutcomesUrine cells atypia were ranged into three classes: negative/normal, atypical/suspicious/dysplasia or positive/malignant.ResultsWe included 2020 workers over a period of 20 years from 1993 to 2013: 606 worked in rubber manufacturing, 692 from metal processing, 245 in chemical industry and 477 in roadwork and building industry. Workers had a mean exposure of 15.2±10.4 years before their first urine cytology screening. There was a mean of 3.4±4.3?urine cytology screenings per worker between 1993 and 2013. 6478 cytology were normal, 462 suspicious and 13 malignant. Suspicious and malignant cytology occurred in 4.8% of workers exposed for 1-10 years, 6.2% for 11-20 years of exposure, 7.6% for 21-30 years and 8.6% for >30 years (p<0.001). Using exposure for 1-10 years as reference, the adjusted OR of receiving a suspicious or malignant diagnosis increased with duration of exposure: OR=1.50 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.05, p=0.01) for 21-30 years and OR=1.78 (95% CI 1.23 to 2.56, p=0.002) for >30 years of exposure. Using metal processing as reference, the risk of pathological urine cytology results increased for rubber manufacturing (OR=1.32, 95%?CI 1.05 to 1.65, p=0.02), with a trend for roadwork and building industry (OR=1.39, 95%?CI 0.98 to 1.97, p=0.07) and for chemical industry (OR=1.34, 95%?CI 0.94 to 1.93, p=0.11).ConclusionsUrine cytology is a useful tool in occupational medicine. We promote new guidelines with an early screening of urothelial cancer by cytology, starting with beginning of exposure.

Project description:ImportanceScreening for lung cancer has the potential to reduce mortality, but in addition to detecting aggressive tumors, screening will also detect indolent tumors that otherwise may not cause clinical symptoms. These overdiagnosis cases represent an important potential harm of screening because they incur additional cost, anxiety, and morbidity associated with cancer treatment.ObjectiveTo estimate overdiagnosis in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST).Design, setting, and participantsWe used data from the NLST, a randomized trial comparing screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) vs chest radiography (CXR) among 53 452 persons at high risk for lung cancer observed for 6.4 years, to estimate the excess number of lung cancers in the LDCT arm of the NLST compared with the CXR arm.Main outcomes and measuresWe calculated 2 measures of overdiagnosis: the probability that a lung cancer detected by screening with LDCT is an overdiagnosis (PS), defined as the excess lung cancers detected by LDCT divided by all lung cancers detected by screening in the LDCT arm; and the number of cases that were considered overdiagnosis relative to the number of persons needed to screen to prevent 1 death from lung cancer.ResultsDuring follow-up, 1089 lung cancers were reported in the LDCT arm and 969 in the CXR arm of the NLST. The probability is 18.5% (95% CI, 5.4%-30.6%) that any lung cancer detected by screening with LDCT was an overdiagnosis, 22.5% (95% CI, 9.7%-34.3%) that a non-small cell lung cancer detected by LDCT was an overdiagnosis, and 78.9% (95% CI, 62.2%-93.5%) that a bronchioalveolar lung cancer detected by LDCT was an overdiagnosis. The number of cases of overdiagnosis found among the 320 participants who would need to be screened in the NLST to prevent 1 death from lung cancer was 1.38.Conclusions and relevanceMore than 18% of all lung cancers detected by LDCT in the NLST seem to be indolent, and overdiagnosis should be considered when describing the risks of LDCT screening for lung cancer.

Project description:Background:Lung cancer screening guidelines recommend using individualized risk models to refer ever-smokers for screening. However, different models select different screening populations. The performance of each model in selecting ever-smokers for screening is unknown. Objective:To compare the U.S. screening populations selected by 9 lung cancer risk models (the Bach model; the Spitz model; the Liverpool Lung Project [LLP] model; the LLP Incidence Risk Model [LLPi]; the Hoggart model; the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Model 2012 [PLCOM2012]; the Pittsburgh Predictor; the Lung Cancer Risk Assessment Tool [LCRAT]; and the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool [LCDRAT]) and to examine their predictive performance in 2 cohorts. Design:Population-based prospective studies. Setting:United States. Participants:Models selected U.S. screening populations by using data from the National Health Interview Survey from 2010 to 2012. Model performance was evaluated using data from 337 388 ever-smokers in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study and 72 338 ever-smokers in the CPS-II (Cancer Prevention Study II) Nutrition Survey cohort. Measurements:Model calibration (ratio of model-predicted to observed cases [expected-observed ratio]) and discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]). Results:At a 5-year risk threshold of 2.0%, the models chose U.S. screening populations ranging from 7.6 million to 26 million ever-smokers. These disagreements occurred because, in both validation cohorts, 4 models (the Bach model, PLCOM2012, LCRAT, and LCDRAT) were well-calibrated (expected-observed ratio range, 0.92 to 1.12) and had higher AUCs (range, 0.75 to 0.79) than 5 models that generally overestimated risk (expected-observed ratio range, 0.83 to 3.69) and had lower AUCs (range, 0.62 to 0.75). The 4 best-performing models also had the highest sensitivity at a fixed specificity (and vice versa) and similar discrimination at a fixed risk threshold. These models showed better agreement on size of the screening population (7.6 million to 10.9 million) and achieved consensus on 73% of persons chosen. Limitation:No consensus on risk thresholds for screening. Conclusion:The 9 lung cancer risk models chose widely differing U.S. screening populations. However, 4 models (the Bach model, PLCOM2012, LCRAT, and LCDRAT) most accurately predicted risk and performed best in selecting ever-smokers for screening. Primary Funding Source:Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute.

Project description:ImportanceDespite the recommendations of lung cancer screening guidelines and the evidence supporting the effectiveness of population-based lung screening, a common barrier to effective lung cancer screening is that the participation rates of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening among individuals with the highest risk are not large. There are limited data from clinical practice regarding whether opportunistic LDCT screening is associated with reduced lung-cancer mortality.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether opportunistic LDCT screening is associated with improved prognosis among adults with lung cancer in mainland China.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included patients diagnosed with lung cancer at Weihai Municipal Hospital Healthcare Group, Weihai City, China, from 2016 to 2021. Data were analyzed from January 2022 to February 2023.ExposuresData collected included demographic indicators, tumor characteristics, comorbidities, blood indexes, and treatment information. Patients were classified into screened and nonscreened groups on the basis of whether or not their lung cancer diagnosis occurred through opportunistic screening.Main outcomes and measuresFollow-up outcome indicators included lung cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality. Propensity score matching (PSM) was adopted to account for potential imbalanced factors between groups. The associations between LDCT screening and outcomes were analyzed using Cox regression models based on the matched data. Propensity score regression adjustment and inverse probability treatment weighting were used for sensitivity analysis.ResultsA total of 5234 patients (mean [SD] baseline age, 61.8 [9.8] years; 2518 [48.1%] female) with complete opportunistic screening information were included in the analytical sample, with 2251 patients (42.91%) receiving their lung cancer diagnosis through opportunistic screening. After 1:1 PSM, 2788 patients (1394 in each group) were finally included. The baseline characteristics of the matched patients were balanced between groups. Opportunistic screening with LDCT was associated with a 49% lower risk of lung cancer death (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.42-0.62) and 46% lower risk of all-cause death (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.45-0.64).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of patients with lung cancer, opportunistic lung cancer screening with LDCT was associated with lower lung cancer mortality and all-cause mortality. These findings suggest that opportunistic screening is an important supplement to population screening to improve prognosis of adults with lung cancer.

Dataset Information

LUCSO-1-French pilot study of LUng Cancer Screening with low-dose computed tomography in a smokers population exposed to Occupational lung carcinogens: study protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets