1 / 47

Lung Cancer Screening in 2013

Lung Cancer Screening in 2013. Cheryl Czerlanis, MD Loyola University Medical Center March 02, 2013. The scope of the problem. An estimated 29% of the global population older than 15 years smokes tobacco.

teva
Télécharger la présentation

Lung Cancer Screening in 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lung Cancer Screening in 2013 Cheryl Czerlanis, MD Loyola University Medical Center March 02, 2013

  2. The scope of the problem • An estimated 29% of the global population older than 15 years smokes tobacco. • 75% of patients with lung cancer present with symptoms due to locally advanced or metastatic disease. • Overall five-year survival for lung cancer is 16%. Fry WA. Cancer 1999;86:1867-76.

  3. Ten Leading Cancer Types for the Estimated New Cancer Cases and Deaths by Sex, 2013 From Seigel,R et al. CA Cancer J Clin2013; 63(1): 14.

  4. Five-year overall survival by stage (percent) Goldstraw, P, et al. J Thorac Oncol 2007; 2:706.

  5. Screening Test Principles • The disease must be prevalent • There must be an advantage to early detection • Screening must be safe, sensitive, and have an acceptable rate of false positives • Cost to society must be acceptable Reduce mortality, improve quality of life, or both. Henschke CI. Radiol Clinic No Amer 2000;38(3):287-95.

  6. Screening Rationale: Early diagnosis 5–year Survival Stage Distribution Wagner H. Cancer Screening 1996;118-49. Mountain CF. Chest 1997;111:1710-17. Inoue K. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1998;116:407-11.

  7. Outcomes to be assessed in lung cancer screening trials • Cancer detection rates • Stage at detection • Disease–specific mortality • Overall survival Mortality rate is the number of persons who die of a certain cause in a time period per population. Survival rates calculate the percentage of persons with a disease who are still alive a set amount of time after diagnosis. 

  8. Methodological biases • Bias related to apparent effects of early diagnosis and treatment that may inflate the benefit seen by screening • Measured in terms of how screen-detected cases compare to cases detected by signs and symptoms • Lead time bias • Length time bias • Overdiagnosis bias • Volunteer bias

  9. Prior Attempts 1950’s • Four nonrandomized uncontrolled studies • Philadelphia Pulmonary Neoplasm Research Project • VA Trial • Tokyo Metropolitan Government Study • South London Lung Cancer Study • Two nonrandomized but controlled studies • North London Cancer Study • Erfurt County Study Patz, EF Jr. NEJM 2000;343(22):1627-33.

  10. Four randomized trials of CXR and Sputum Cytology (SC) 1970’s

  11. Results • Increased • Number of early stage cancers • Number of resectable cancers • NO Reduction in Lung Cancer Mortality • Why? • Screened patients had a higher likelihood of being diagnosed and living longer from the time of diagnosis. • But equal numbers of patients in both groups ultimately died of cancer. Patz, EF Jr. NEJM 2000;343(22):1627-33.

  12. Low-dose screening CT • No Contrast • Low Radiation Dose • Average effective dose varies between 0.6 mSv and 1.5 mSv • Equivalent to 2 to 5 chest x-rays or a transatlantic flight • Less than a minute • $150-400

  13. Rationale for CT screening Onset of tumor Detectable by CT Detectable by CXR Onset of symptoms Increased window of opportunity

  14. Early Lung Cancer Action Program (ELCAP) • Cornell and NYU • 1000 patients • Entry Criteria • Age > 60 • ≥ 10 pack year smoking history • Actual Mean Patient • Age = 67 • 45 pack years • Plain film and CT imaging Henschke CI. Lancet 1999;354(173):99-105.

  15. ELCAP Protocol • If Negative • Recommend annual repeat CT • If Diffuse disease • Recommend Pulmonary Evaluation • If Positive • <5mm – Follow-up CT scan at 3, 6, 12, 24 months • 6 – 10 mm – Investigator discretion • > 10 mm – Biopsy or Surgery Henschke CI. Lancet 1999;354(173):99-105.

  16. ELCAP Data • 233 “Positive” Scans (23.3%) • 33 also seen on CXR • Conversely, less than half of the “nodules” seen on CXR were confirmed on CT • 27 Malignant NCN (2.7%) • CXR missed 20 of these • Mainly adenocarcinoma • (Plus 4 other malignancies: 2 endobronchial lesions and 2 mediastinal adenopathy) Henschke CI. Lancet 1999;354(173):99-105.

  17. 233 Patients with non-calcified nodules Size of Largest NCN Number of NCN’s/Scan % % number mm Henschke CI. Lancet 1999;354(173):99-105.

  18. Chance of Malignancy Size of Largest NCN Number of NCN’s/Scan 12% 1% 24% 10% % % 33% 14% 80% number mm Henschke CI. Lancet 1999;354(173):99-105.

  19. Characteristics of the 27 lung cancers Stage distribution Results • 85% were stage I • 83% missed by CXR • 96% were resectable Henschke CI. Lancet 1999;354(173):99-105.

  20. CT scan versus CXR • More sensitive • Non-calcified nodules (23 versus 7 percent) • Malignancy (2.7 versus 0.7 percent) • Benign nodules (20.6 versus 6.1 percent) • BUT no stage shift • 3.0/1000 versus 2.1to 3.8/1000 with advanced disease Patz, EF Jr. NEJM 2000;343(22):1627-33.

  21. Other results • The rate of biopsy for benign diseasewas 1.7% • 4 of 233 patients • No patient underwent a thoracotomyfor a benign lesion in the ELCAP study • ELCAP had no control group • Mortality inferences are subject to bias

  22. Meta-analysis of baseline findings of randomized, controlled trials

  23. CT Screening for lung cancer Gopal M. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5:1233-1239.

  24. National lung cancer screening trial • More than 53,000 current or former smokers were enrolled in NLST at more than 30 study sites across the country (2002–2004) • Examined the risks and benefits of spiral CT scans compared to chest X-rays. • Repeated at one and two years after the first scan. • Powered to detect a 20% reduction in mortality due to screening.

  25. NLST design Prospective, randomized trial comparing low-dose helical CT screening to chest x-ray screening with the endpoint of lung cancer specific mortality in high risk participants • Eligibility • Age 55-74 • Asymptomatic current or former smoker; 30 pack year smoking history • Former smokers: quit within preceding 15 years • No prior lung cancer diagnosis • No evidence of other cancer within preceding 5 years http://radiology.rsna.org/content/early/2010/10/28/radiol.10091808.full Slides courtesy of Christine Berg, MD (NIH)

  26. NLST primary endpoint http://radiology.rsna.org/content/early/2010/10/28/radiol.10091808.full

  27. NLST secondary endpoints • Secondary endpoints • All cause mortality • Lung cancer: prevalence | incidence | interval cancers • Stage distribution • Screening test performance • Medical resource utilization for [+] screen http://radiology.rsna.org/content/early/2010/10/28/radiol.10091808.full Slides courtesy of Christine Berg, MD (NIH)

  28. Comparing NLST with eligible US census population Aberle DR, et al. Natl Cancer Inst (2010) 102 (23): 1771-1779.

  29. Comparing NLST with US census population Aberle DR, et al. Natl Cancer Inst (2010) 102 (23): 1771-1779.

  30. Comparing NLST with US census population • Compared with similar US population, NLST cohort has similar gender distribution and smoking exposure • However, NLST participants • Younger • Better educated • Less likely to be current smokers Aberle DR, et al. Natl Cancer Inst (2010) 102 (23): 1771-1779.

  31. Screening exam compliance

  32. Screen positivity rate by screening round & arm * Positive screen: nodule ≥ 4 mm or other findings potentially related to lung cancer. ** Abnormality stable for 3 rounds could be called negative by protocol.

  33. True and false positive screens Data reflect the final interpretation, including benefit of historical comparison exams.

  34. Interim analysis: lung cancer mortality 10-20-2010 p = 0.0041 Deficit of lung cancer deaths in CT arm exceeds that expected by chance, even allowing for multiple looks at the data.

  35. Interim analysis: all-cause mortality 10-20-2010 • Lung cancer: 25% of all deaths in NLST • Lung cancer: 56% of 126 excessdeaths in CXR arm p = 0.023

  36. Kaplan-Meier curves for lung cancer mortality 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.94 Probability of survival: ALL participants 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.90 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CT arm Years from randomization CXR arm

  37. Kaplan-Meier curves for all-cause mortality 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.94 Probability of survival: ALL participants 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.90 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CT arm Years from randomization CXR arm

  38. Results • At the time the DSMB held its final meeting on October 20, 2010: • 356 deaths from lung cancer had occurred among participants in the CT arm of the study • 443 lung cancer deaths had occurred among those in the chest X-ray group • The DSMB concluded that this 20.3 percent reduction in lung cancer mortality met the standard for statistical significance and recommended ending the study.

  39. Conclusions • The vast majority of lung nodules detected by either CT or CXR are benign. • Most CT-detected nodules require some form of additional follow-up. • CT detects more lung cancers than does CXR. • Most of these excess cancers are early stage cancers. • Screening programs still uncover late-stage cancers on initial and interval scans.

  40. Conclusions • Prior to the NLST trial, there had been no evidence of a mortality benefit for lung cancer-related mortality with CT screening. • The NLST trial showed a 20% relative risk reduction in lung-cancer specific mortality.

  41. Cost-effectiveness ratio • Modeling algorithm • Analysis based on a model designed prior to completion of NSLT modeled cost-effectiveness of CT scan screening for six patient cohorts • Different ages and smoking histories • CT screening may decrease lung cancer at 10 years by 18 to 25% at a cost ranging from $126,000 to $269,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) • Cost-effective ratio for other screened cancers • Colorectal cancer was $47,700 per QALY • Breast cancer was $13,300 to $32,000 per QALY McMahon PM, et al. J Thorac Oncol 2011; 6:1841.

  42. Number needed to screen • NNS represents the number of patients who must screened over a given period of time to prevent one death from the disease in question. • Reflects both the prevalence of the disease and the effectiveness of therapy. • Does not specifically account for the risks or the costs of screening. • Reciprocal of the frequency of the reduction in absolute risk.

  43. Other screening modalities 1Hendrick RE, et al. Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Mar;198(3):723-8. 2Hewitson P, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(1):CD001216. 3Barrett B et al. Fam Med 2011;43(4):248-53. 4Benedet JL, et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166:1254–9. 5Berg CD, et al. N Eng J Med. 2011;365(5):395-409.

  44. Recommendations for screening by expert groups • In 2012, a systematic review was commissioned by American Cancer Society (ACS), American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) • Screening guidelines supporting low-dose CT scans for high-risk groups were issued by the NCCN and ACCP/ASCO Bach, PB, et al. JAMA. 2012: 307(22): 2418-2429.

  45. Guidelines for lung cancer screening

  46. Issues to be addressed • Optimal population for screening • Cost-effectiveness of screening • Optimal management of screen-detected nodules • Optimal screening interval and number of screening rounds • Reimbursement issues • Importance of implementing screening programs only in the setting of multidisciplinary programs with experience in evaluation and management of early lung cancers

  47. A proven intervention

More Related