Marjolein A. Heuvelmans

Detection of lung cancer through low-dose CT screening (NELSON): a prespecified analysis of screening test performance and interval cancers

BACKGROUND Low-dose CT screening is recommended for individuals at high risk of developing lung cancer. However, CT screening does not detect all lung cancers: some might be missed at screening, and others can develop in the interval between screens. The NELSON trial is a randomised trial to assess the effect of screening with increasing screening intervals on lung cancer mortality. In this prespecified analysis, we aimed to assess screening test performance, and the epidemiological, radiological, and clinical characteristics of interval cancers in NELSON trial participants assigned to the screening group. METHODS Eligible participants in the NELSON trial were those aged 50-75 years, who had smoked 15 or more cigarettes per day for more than 25 years or ten or more cigarettes for more than 30 years, and were still smoking or had quit less than 10 years ago. We included all participants assigned to the screening group who had attended at least one round of screening. Screening test results were based on volumetry using a two-step approach. Initially, screening test results were classified as negative, indeterminate, or positive based on nodule presence and volume. Subsequently, participants with an initial indeterminate result underwent follow-up screening to classify their final screening test result as negative or positive, based on nodule volume doubling time. We obtained information about all lung cancer diagnoses made during the first three rounds of screening, plus an additional 2 years of follow-up from the national cancer registry. We determined epidemiological, radiological, participant, and tumour characteristics by reassessing medical files, screening CTs, and clinical CTs. The NELSON trial is registered at www.trialregister.nl, number ISRCTN63545820. FINDINGS 15,822 participants were enrolled in the NELSON trial, of whom 7915 were assigned to low-dose CT screening with increasing interval between screens, and 7907 to no screening. We included 7155 participants in our study, with median follow-up of 8·16 years (IQR 7·56-8·56). 187 (3%) of 7155 screened participants were diagnosed with 196 screen-detected lung cancers, and another 34 (<1%; 19 [56%] in the first year after screening, and 15 [44%] in the second year after screening) were diagnosed with 35 interval cancers. For the three screening rounds combined, with a 2-year follow-up, sensitivity was 84·6% (95% CI 79·6-89·2), specificity was 98·6% (95% CI 98·5-98·8), positive predictive value was 40·4% (95% CI 35·9-44·7), and negative predictive value was 99·8% (95% CI 99·8-99·9). Retrospective assessment of the last screening CT and clinical CT in 34 patients with interval cancer showed that interval cancers were not visible in 12 (35%) cases. In the remaining cases, cancers were visible when retrospectively assessed, but were not diagnosed because of radiological detection and interpretation errors (17 [50%]), misclassification by the protocol (two [6%]), participant non-compliance (two [6%]), and non-adherence to protocol (one [3%]). Compared with screen-detected cancers, interval cancers were diagnosed at more advanced stages (29 [83%] of 35 interval cancers vs 44 [22%] of 196 screen-detected cancers diagnosed in stage III or IV; p<0·0001), were more often small-cell carcinomas (seven [20%] vs eight [4%]; p=0·003) and less often adenocarcinomas (nine [26%] vs 102 [52%]; p=0·005). INTERPRETATION Lung cancer screening in the NELSON trial yielded high specificity and sensitivity, with only a small number of interval cancers. The results of this study could be used to improve screening algorithms, and reduce the number of missed cancers. FUNDING Zorgonderzoek Nederland Medische Wetenschappen and Koningin Wilhelmina Fonds.

Occurrence and lung cancer probability of new solid nodules at incidence screening with low-dose CT: analysis of data from the randomised, controlled NELSON trial

BACKGROUND US guidelines now recommend lung cancer screening with low-dose CT for high-risk individuals. Reports of new nodules after baseline screening have been scarce and are inconsistent because of differences in definitions used. We aimed to identify the occurrence of new solid nodules and their probability of being lung cancer at incidence screening rounds in the Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NELSON). METHODS In the ongoing, multicentre, randomised controlled NELSON trial, between Dec 23, 2003, and July 6, 2006, 15 822 participants who had smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day for more than 25 years or ten cigarettes a day for more than 30 years and were current smokers, or had quit smoking less than 10 years ago, were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either screening with low-dose CT (n=7915) or no screening (n=7907). From Jan 28, 2004, to Dec 18, 2006, 7557 individuals underwent baseline screening with low-dose CT; 7295 participants underwent second and third screening rounds. We included all participants with solid non-calcified nodules, registered by the NELSON radiologists as new or smaller than 15 mm(3) (study detection limit) at previous screens. Nodule volume was generated semiautomatically by software. We calculated the maximum volume doubling time for nodules with an estimated percentage volume change of 25% or more, representing the minimum growth rate for the time since the previous scan. Lung cancer diagnosis was based on histology, and benignity was based on histology or stable size for at least 2 years. The NELSON trial is registered at trialregister.nl, number ISRCTN63545820. FINDINGS We analysed data for participants with at least one solid non-calcified nodule at the second or third screening round. In the two incidence screening rounds, the NELSON radiologists registered 1222 new solid nodules in 787 (11%) participants. A new solid nodule was lung cancer in 49 (6%) participants with new solid nodules and, in total, 50 lung cancers were found, representing 4% of all new solid nodules. 34 (68%) lung cancers were diagnosed at stage I. Nodule volume had a high discriminatory power (area under the receiver operating curve 0·795 [95% CI 0·728-0·862]; p<0·0001). Nodules smaller than 27 mm(3) had a low probability of lung cancer (two [0·5%] of 417 nodules; lung cancer probability 0·5% [95% CI 0·0-1·9]), nodules with a volume of 27 mm(3) up to 206 mm(3) had an intermediate probability (17 [3·1%] of 542 nodules; lung cancer probability 3·1% [1·9-5·0]), and nodules of 206 mm(3) or greater had a high probability (29 [16·9%] of 172 nodules; lung cancer probability 16·9% [12·0-23·2]). A volume cutoff value of 27 mm(3) or greater had more than 95% sensitivity for lung cancer. INTERPRETATION Our study shows that new solid nodules are detected at each screening round in 5-7% of individuals who undergo screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT. These new nodules have a high probability of malignancy even at a small size. These findings should be considered in future screening guidelines, and new solid nodules should be followed up more aggressively than nodules detected at baseline screening. FUNDING Zorgonderzoek Nederland Medische Wetenschappen and Koningin Wilhelmina Fonds Kankerbestrijding.

Final screening round of the NELSON lung cancer screening trial: the effect of a 2.5-year screening interval

Background In the USA annual lung cancer screening is recommended. However, the optimal screening strategy (eg, screening interval, screening rounds) is unknown. This study provides results of the fourth screening round after a 2.5-year interval in the Dutch-Belgian Lung Cancer Screening trial (NELSON). Methods Europes largest, sufficiently powered randomised lung cancer screening trial was designed to determine whether low-dose CT screening reduces lung cancer mortality by ≥25% compared with no screening after 10 years of follow-up. The screening arm (n=7915) received screening at baseline, after 1 year, 2 years and 2.5 years. Performance of the NELSON screening strategy in the final fourth round was evaluated. Comparisons were made between lung cancers detected in the first three rounds, in the final round and during the 2.5-year interval. Results In round 4, 46 cancers were screen-detected and there were 28 interval cancers between the third and fourth screenings. Compared with the second round screening (1-year interval), in round 4 a higher proportion of stage IIIb/IV cancers (17.3% vs 6.8%, p=0.02) and higher proportions of squamous-cell, bronchoalveolar and small-cell carcinomas (p=0.001) were detected. Compared with a 2-year interval, the 2.5-year interval showed a higher non-significant stage distribution (stage IIIb/IV 17.3% vs 5.2%, p=0.10). Additionally, more interval cancers manifested in the 2.5-year interval than in the intervals of previous rounds (28 vs 5 and 28 vs 19). Conclusions A 2.5-year interval reduced the effect of screening: the interval cancer rate was higher compared with the 1-year and 2-year intervals, and proportion of advanced disease stage in the final round was higher compared with the previous rounds. Trial registration number ISRCTN63545820.

European position statement on lung cancer screening

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT can save lives. This European Union (EU) position statement presents the available evidence and the major issues that need to be addressed to ensure the successful implementation of low-dose CT lung cancer screening in Europe. This statement identified specific actions required by the European lung cancer screening community to adopt before the implementation of low-dose CT lung cancer screening. This position statement recommends the following actions: a risk stratification approach should be used for future lung cancer low-dose CT programmes; that individuals who enter screening programmes should be provided with information on the benefits and harms of screening, and smoking cessation should be offered to all current smokers; that management of detected solid nodules should use semi-automatically measured volume and volume-doubling time; that national quality assurance boards should be set up to oversee technical standards; that a lung nodule management pathway should be established and incorporated into clinical practice with a tailored screening approach; that non-calcified baseline lung nodules greater than 300 mm3, and new lung nodules greater than 200 mm3, should be managed in multidisciplinary teams according to this EU position statement recommendations to ensure that patients receive the most appropriate treatment; and planning for implementation of low-dose CT screening should start throughout Europe as soon as possible. European countries need to set a timeline for implementing lung cancer screening.

Contributions of the European trials (European randomized screening group) in computed tomography lung cancer screening.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. In 2011, the largest lung cancer screening trial worldwide, the US National Lung Screening Trial, published a 20% decrease in lung cancer–specific mortality in the computed tomography (CT)-screened group, compared with the group screened by chest x-ray. On the basis of this trial, different US guidelines recently have recommended CT lung cancer screening. However, several questions regarding the implementation of lung cancer screening need to be answered. In Europe, several lung cancer screening trials are ongoing. It is planned to pool the results of the lung cancer screening trials in European randomized lung cancer CT screening (EUCT). By pooling of the data, EUCT hopes to be able to provide additional information for the discussion of some important issues regarding the implementation of lung cancer screening by low-dose CT, including: the determination of the optimal screen population, the comparison between a volume-based and diameter-based nodule management protocol, and the determination of optimal screen intervals.

Slow-growing lung cancer as an emerging entity: from screening to clinical management

The current paradigm is that untreated lung cancer is invariably and rapidly fatal, therefore the medical community normally dismisses the idea that a patient could live with such a disease for years without any therapy. Yet evidence from lung cancer screening research and from recent clinical series suggests that, although rarely recognised in routine practice, slow-growing lung cancers do exist and are more common than previously thought. Here, current evidence is reviewed and clinical cases are illustrated to show that slow-growing lung cancer is a real clinical entity, and the reasons why management protocols developed in the screening setting may also be useful in clinical practice are discussed. Features suggesting that a lung cancer may be slow-growing are described and appraised, areas of uncertainty are examined, modern management options for early-stage disease are evaluated and the influence that all this knowledge might have on our clinical decision-making is weighed. Further research directed at developing appropriate guidelines for these peculiar but increasingly common patients is warranted. The increasingly common incidence of slow-growing lung cancer and its influence on clinical decision-making is discussed http://ow.ly/oZ6c2

Comparison of three software systems for semi-automatic volumetry of pulmonary nodules on baseline and follow-up CT examinations

Background Early diagnosis of lung cancer in a treatable stage is the main purpose of lung cancer screening by computed tomography (CT). Accurate three-dimensional size and growth measurements are essential to assess the risk of malignancy. Nodule volumes can be calculated by using semi-automated volumetric software. Systematic differences in volume measurements between packages could influence nodule categorization and management decisions. Purpose To compare volumetric measurements of solid pulmonary nodules on baseline and follow-up CT scans as well as the volume doubling time (VDT) for three software packages. Material and Methods From a Lung Cancer Screening study (NELSON), 50 participants were randomly selected from the baseline round. The study population comprised participants with at least one pulmonary nodule at the baseline and consecutive CT examination. The volume of each nodule was determined for both time points using three semi-automated software packages (P1, P2, and P3). Manual modification was performed when automated assessment was visually inaccurate. VDT was calculated to evaluate nodule growth. Volume, VDT, and nodule management were compared for the three software packages, using P1 as the reference standard. Results In 25 participants, 147 nodules were present on both examinations (volume: 12.0–436.6 mm3). Initial segmentation at baseline was evaluated to be satisfactory in 93.9% of nodules for P1, 84.4 % for P2, and 88.4% for P3. Significant difference was found in measured volume between P1 and the other two packages (P < 0.001). P2 overestimated the volume by 38 ± 24%, and P3 by 50 ± 22%. At baseline, there was consensus on nodule size categorization in 80% for P1&P2 and 74% for P1&P3. At follow-up, consensus on VDT categorization was present in 47% for P1&P2 and 44% for P1&P3. Conclusion Software packages for lung nodule evaluation yield significant differences in volumetric measurements and VDT. This variation affects the classification of lung nodules, especially in follow-up examinations.

Risk stratification based on screening history: the NELSON lung cancer screening study

Background Debate about the optimal lung cancer screening strategy is ongoing. In this study, previous screening history of the Dutch-Belgian Lung Cancer Screening trial (NELSON) is investigated on if it predicts the screening outcome (test result and lung cancer risk) of the final screening round. Methods 15 792 participants were randomised (1:1) of which 7900 randomised into a screening group. CT screening took place at baseline, and after 1, 2 and 2.5 years. Initially, three screening outcomes were possible: negative, indeterminate or positive scan result. Probability for screening outcome in the fourth round was calculated for subgroups of participants. Results Based on results of the first three rounds, three subgroups were identified: (1) those with exclusively negative results (n=3856; 73.0%); (2) those with ≥1 indeterminate result, but never a positive result (n=1342; 25.5%); and (3) with ≥1 positive result (n=81; 1.5%). Group 1 had the highest probability for having a negative scan result in round 4 (97.2% vs 94.8% and 90.1%, respectively, p<0.001), and the lowest risk for detecting lung cancer in round 4 (0.6% vs 1.6%, p=0.001). ‘Smoked pack-years’ and ‘screening history’ significantly predicted the fourth round test result. The third round results implied that the risk for detecting lung cancer (after an interval of 2.5 years) was 0.6% for those with negative results compared with 3.7% of those with indeterminate results. Conclusions Previous CT lung cancer screening results provides an opportunity for further risk stratifications of those who undergo lung cancer screening. Trial registration number Results, ISRCTN63545820.

Features of Resolving and Nonresolving Indeterminate Pulmonary Nodules at Follow-up CT: The NELSON Study

PURPOSE To retrospectively identify features that allow prediction of the disappearance of solid, indeterminate, intraparenchymal nodules detected at baseline computed tomographic (CT) screening of individuals at high risk for lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study was institutional review board approved. Participants gave informed consent. Participants with at least one noncalcified, solid, indeterminate, intraparenchymal nodule (volume range, 50-500 mm(3)) at baseline were included (964 nodules in 750 participants). According to protocol, indeterminate nodules were re-examined at a 3-month follow-up CT examination. Repeat screening was performed at years 2 and 4. A nodule was defined as resolving if it did not appear at a subsequent CT examination. Nodule resolution was regarded as spontaneous, not the effect of treatment. CT features of resolving and nonresolving (stable and malignant) nodules were compared by means of generalized estimating equations analysis. RESULTS At subsequent screening, 10.1% (97 of 964) of the nodules had disappeared, 77.3% (n = 75) of these at the 3-month follow-up CT and 94.8% (n = 92) at the second round of screening. Nonperipheral nodules were more likely to resolve than were peripheral nodules (odds ratio: 3.16; 95% confidence interval: 1.76, 5.70). Compared with smooth nodules, nodules with spiculated margins showed the highest probability of disappearance (odds ratio: 4.36; 95% confidence interval: 2.24, 8.49). CONCLUSION Approximately 10% of solid, intermediate-sized, intraparenchymal pulmonary nodules found at baseline screening for lung cancer resolved during follow-up, three-quarters of which had disappeared at the 3-month follow-up CT examination. Resolving pulmonary nodules share CT features with malignant nodules.

Volume versus diameter assessment of small pulmonary nodules in CT lung cancer screening

Currently, lung cancer screening by low-dose chest CT is implemented in the United States for high-risk persons. A disadvantage of lung cancer screening is the large number of small-to-intermediate sized lung nodules, detected in around 50% of all participants, the large majority being benign. Accurate estimation of nodule size and growth is essential in the classification of lung nodules. Currently, manual diameter measurements are the standard for lung cancer screening programs and routine clinical care. However, European screening studies using semi-automated volume measurements have shown higher accuracy and reproducibility compared to diameter measurements. In addition to this, with the optimization of CT scan techniques and reconstruction parameters, as well as advances in segmentation software, the accuracy of nodule volume measurement can be improved even further. The positive results of previous studies on volume and diameter measurements of lung nodules suggest that manual measurements of nodule diameter may be replaced by semi-automated volume measurements in the (near) future.