You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Research letter
Does UKLS strategy increase the yield of screen-detected lung cancers? A comparison with ITALUNG
  1. Mario Mascalchi1,
  2. Andrea Lopes Pegna2,
  3. Laura Carrozzi3,
  4. Francesca Carozzi4,
  5. Fabio Falaschi5,
  6. Giulia Picozzi6,
  7. Eugenio Paci7
  1. 1Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
  2. 2Pneumonology Department, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
  3. 3Cardiopulmonary Department, University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
  4. 4Analytical Cytology and Bio-Molecular Unit, Institute for Oncological Study and Prevention, Florence, Italy
  5. 52nd Radiology Department, University Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
  6. 6Radiodiagnostic Unit, Institute for Oncological Study and Prevention, Florence, Italy
  7. 7Department of Epidemiology, Institute for Oncological Study and Prevention, Florence, Italy
  1. Correspondence to Professor Mario Mascalchi, “Mario Serio” Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Viale Pieraccini, Florence 50133, Italy; m.mascalchi{at}dfc.unifi.it

https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208409

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    The optimal strategy to increase the benefit of low dose computed tomograph (LDCT) screening of lung cancer in terms of as high as possible number of discovered cancers and to reduce the costs, in terms of as low as possible number of LDCT examinations and of interventions on benign lesions, is not established.

    Field and co-workers recently reported1 the results of lung cancer screening with LDCT in the UKLS RCT pilot study that selected eligible subjects with a validated individual risk prediction model, invited potential candidates by mail and applied the Wald Single Screen Design2 with nodule management based on volumetry.1

    We compared (table 1) some data of UKLS RCT pilot study with those of ITALUNG RCT that selected eligible subjects based on age and smoking history, invited potential candidates by mail and involved four annual LDCT screening rounds with nodule management based on diameter measurement.3 ,4

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Screens risk profile and results of LDCT in pilot UKLS and ITALUNG RCT

    In the UKLS pilot study, higher rates of screen-detected primary lung cancers (2.1% vs 1.7%) and of stage I–II lesions (86% vs 68%) were observed. These features may be accounted for different population's characteristics including older age (mean 67 vs 61 years), higher male/female ratio (3.01 vs 1.79), higher frequency of asbestos exposure (36.0% vs 6.6%), higher prevalence of respiratory disease (52.1% vs 35.1%) and familial history for lung cancer (24.6% vs 16.8%) in UKLS screens. In particular, prevalence of lung cancer at LDCT screening can be as high as 4.2% in subjects exposed to asbestos.5 On the other hand, the majority of the screens in UKLS were former smokers, whereas they were current smokers in ITALUNG. Twelve-month LDCT were obtained in 50.9% of UKLS and 96.4% of ITALUNG screens. However, the rate of intervention for benign lesions was lower in ITALUNG (4.7% vs 10.3%).

    In conclusion, the UKLS recruitment strategy increases the yield of screen-detected lung cancer compared with ITALUNG, but the gain is mild (19%). This supports the view that incorporation of additional risk factors of lung cancers as pulmonary emphysema6 and serum biomarkers7 ,8 in selection criteria of eligible subjects for LDCT screening might increase such a yield. Moreover, above data demonstrate feasibility of comparison of risk factors in subjects recruited in RCTs of lung cancer screening that is required before pooling and joint analysis of lung cancer mortality data.9

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Field JK,
      2. Duffy SW,
      3. Baldwin DR, et al
      . UK Lung Cancer RCT Pilot Screening Trial: baseline findings from the screening arm provide evidence for the potential implementation of lung cancer screening. Thorax 2016;71:161–70. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207140
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      1. Baldwin DR,
      2. Duffy SW,
      3. Wald NJ, et al
      . UK Lung Screen (UKLS) nodule management protocol: modelling of a single screen randomised controlled trial of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer. Thorax 2011;66:308–13. doi:10.1136/thx.2010.152066
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      1. Lopes Pegna A,
      2. Picozzi G,
      3. Mascalchi M, et al
      . Design, recruitment and baseline results of the ITALUNG trial for lung cancer screening with low-dose CT. Lung Cancer 2009;64:34–40. doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2008.07.003
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      1. Lopes Pegna A,
      2. Picozzi G,
      3. Falaschi F, et al
      . Four-year results of low-dose CT screening and nodule management in the ITALUNG trial. J Thor Oncol 2013;8:866–75. doi:10.1097/JTO.0b013e31828f68d6
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    5. ↵
      1. Das M,
      2. Mühlenbruch G,
      3. Mahnken AH, et al
      . Asbestos Surveillance Program Aachen (ASPA): initial results from baseline screening for lung cancer in asbestos-exposed high-risk individuals using low-dose multidetector-row CT. Eur Radiol 2007;17:1193–9. doi:10.1007/s00330-006-0426-8
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. de-Torres JP,
      2. Marín JM,
      3. Casanova C, et al
      . Identification of COPD patients at high risk for lung cancer mortality using the COPD-LUCSS-DLCO. Chest 2016;149:936–42. doi:10.1378/chest.15-1868
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    7. ↵
      1. Carozzi FM,
      2. Bisanzi S,
      3. Falini P, et al
      . Molecular profile in body fluids in subjects enrolled in a randomised trial for lung cancer screening: perspectives of integrated strategies for early diagnosis. Lung Cancer 2010;68:216–21. doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2009.06.015
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. ↵
      1. Sozzi G,
      2. Boeri M,
      3. Rossi M, et al
      . Clinical utility of a plasma-based miRNA signature classifier within computed tomography lung cancer screening: a correlative MILD trial study. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:768–73. doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.50.4357
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    9. ↵
      1. Field JK,
      2. van Klaveren R,
      3. Pedersen JH, et al
      . European Randomized Lung Cancer Screening Trials: Post NLST. J Surg Oncol 2013;108:280–6. doi:10.1002/jso.23383
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

    Footnotes

    • Contributors MM devised the paper and wrote the paper draft, ALP reviewed the recruitment data and critically discussed the paper. LC critically discussed the risk factors data. FC critically reviewed the manuscript. FF critically discussed the radiological data. GP reviewed radiological data. EP critically revised the paper.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Ethics approval Local Ethic Committees of Florence, Pistoia and Pisa Hospitals (approval number 29–30 of 30 September 2003; number 23 of 27 October 2003; and number 00028543 of 13 May 2004.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement The authors intend to share the data from the ITALUNG study concerning recruitment, risk factors of eligible subjects and results of LDCT screening.