Search

Objectives: Patients with non-small cell lung cancer and nodal disease are a heterogeneous group with varied patterns of disease. The aim of this study was to assess long-term outcomes of patients with skip N2 disease in comparison to those with N1 or non-skip N2 disease., Materials and Methods: A retrospective review of 445 patients undergoing anatomical lung resection for primary lung cancer between 2012 and 2019 with post-operative histological confirmation of nodal disease was undertaken. Log rank analysis was used to assess differences in estimated median overall survival according to nodal status. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to determine whether skip N2 disease was independently associated with overall survival., Results: Mean patient age was 67.0 years (standard deviation ± 9.2 years) and 48.1% (n = 214) were male. In total, 20.7% (n = 92) of patients had N1 disease, 32.1% (n = 143) had skip N2 disease and 47.2% (n = 210) had non-skip N2 disease. Post-operative upstaging took place in 33.0% (n = 147) of patients. Median follow-up time was 35 months (interquartile range 14-68 months). Skip N2 patients had significantly longer estimated median overall survival in comparison to their non-skip N2 counterparts (47 months vs 28 months, log rank analysis p = 0.029) and non-skip N2 disease remained independently associated with reduced overall survival after multivariable analysis (hazard ratio 1.421, 95% confidence interval 1.060-1.907, p = 0.019)., Conclusion: Skip N2 disease is a positive prognostic factor for patients with N2 lung cancer, suggesting that lung cancer staging guidelines should consider separating N2 disease into additional subgroups in order to improve prognostic accuracy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The frequency of lung cancer detection in the Manchester Lung Health Checks (MLHCs), a community-based screening service, was higher than in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) over two screening rounds. We aimed to identify the potential reasons for this difference., Methods: We analyzed individual-level data from NLST and MLHCs, restricting to MLHCs participants who met NLST eligibility criteria. We calculated 'detection ratios' comparing the frequency of lung cancer detection in MLHCs vs NLST, first after excluding NLST participants ineligible by MLHC eligibility criteria (6-year lung cancer risk ≥ 1.51 %), and then after standardization to remove the influence of different distributions of baseline lung cancer risk., Results: Among the 1,079 MLHCs participants who met NLST eligibility criteria, 4.7% were diagnosed with lung cancer over two screening rounds compared with 1.7% in NLST, giving an initial detection ratio of 2.6 (95%CI 2.2-3.0). This was reduced to 2.2 (95%CI 1.3-2.3) after imposing the MLHCs eligibility criterion on NLST, and further to 1.6 (95%CI 1.2-2.1) after removing the influence of different risk distributions. In stratified analyses, the standardized detection ratio was particularly elevated in individuals who were older, living in areas of high socioeconomic disadvantage, or had an FEV/FVC ratio less than 60., Conclusions: The 2.6-fold higher lung cancer detection in the community-based MLHCs vs NLST is partly explained by differences in eligibility criteria and baseline risk distributions. The residual 60% increase may relate to higher detection in certain risk groups, including older participants, those with more obstructive lung disease, and those living in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage., (Copyright © 2022 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: In England, a risk-based approach is used to determine eligibility for lung cancer screening. Ensuring effective communication and counselling of risk is therefore increasingly important. In this study, we explore the perception of lung cancer risk in attendees of a community-based screening service, located in socio-economically deprived areas of Manchester. We analyse responses based on demographic variables, calculated risk score and screening eligibility., Materials and Methods: The Manchester Lung Health Check (LHC) programme invited ever smokers, age 55-80, to a lung cancer risk assessment in which their 6-year risk was calculated (using the PLCO M2012 model). Those at high risk (PLCO M2012 score ≥ 1.51%) were eligible for low dose CT (LDCT) screening. Prior to their assessment, attendees were invited to complete the study questionnaire, which assessed absolute and comparative risk perception, disease knowledge (incidence, survival, and risk factors), lung cancer specific worry, and mental health., Results: 371 participants completed the questionnaire; 66% (n = 243) had linked clinical data. Perceived absolute risk was markedly higher than calculated risk (median: 20% vs. 1%; p < 0.001) and higher in women than men (25% vs. 15%; p = 0.001). There was no correlation between perceived absolute and calculated risk. Overall, 30% classified themselves at higher, and 21% at lower, lung cancer risk compared to others their age. Median PLCO M2012 score increased with perceived comparative risk (p = 0.004). Those eligible for screening were more likely to: classify themselves at higher comparative risk (41% vs. 21%; p < 0.0001), report lung cancer-specific worry (27% vs. 10%; p = 0.001) and have indications of depression (20% vs. 10%; p = 0.05). Family history of lung cancer was significantly associated with higher comparative risk ( adj OR 4.03, 95%CI 1.74-9.3; p = 0.001)., Conclusion: Employing comparative rather than absolute risk may assist risk counselling. Further research is required to determine the optimal approach to risk communication in this setting., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Low-dose CT (LDCT) screening reduces lung cancer specific mortality. Several countries, including the UK, are evaluating the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening using the latest evidence. In this paper we report baseline screening performance from five UK-based lung cancer screening programmes., Methods: Data was collected at baseline from each screening programme. Measures of performance included prevalence of screen detected lung cancer, rate of surveillance imaging for indeterminate findings and surgical resection rates. Screening related harms were assessed by measuring false positive rates, number of invasive tests with associated complications in individuals without lung cancer and benign surgical resection rates., Results: A total of 11,148 individuals had a baseline LDCT scan during the period of analysis (2011 to 2020). Overall, 84.7% (n = 9,440) of baseline LDCT scans were categorised as negative, 11.1% (n = 1,239) as indeterminate and 4.2% (n = 469) as positive. The prevalence of screen detected lung cancer was 2.2%, ranging between 1.8% and 4.4% for individual programmes. The surgical resection rate was 66% (range 46% to 83%) and post-surgical 90-day mortality for those with lung cancer 1.2% (n = 2/165). The false positive rate was 2% (n = 219/10,898) and of those with a positive result, one in two had lung cancer diagnosed (53.3%). An invasive test was required in 0.6% (n = 61/10,898) of screening attendees without lung cancer; there were no associated major complications or deaths. The benign surgical resection rate was 4.6% (n = 8/173), equating to 0.07% of the screened population., Discussion: The performance of UK-based lung cancer screening programmes, delivered within or aligned to the National Health Service, compares favourably to published clinical trial data. Reported harms, including false positive and benign surgical resection rates are low. Ongoing monitoring of screening performance is vital to ensure standards are maintained and harms minimised., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objectives: The impact of lung cancer screening on smoking is unclear, especially in deprived populations who are underrepresented in screening trials. The aim of this observational cohort study was to investigate whether a community-based lung cancer screening programme influenced smoking behaviour and smoking attitude in socio-economically deprived populations., Material and Methods: Ever-smokers, age 55-74, registered at participating General Practices were invited to a community-based Lung Health Check (LHC). This included an assessment of respiratory symptoms, lung cancer risk (PLCO m2012 ), spirometry and signposting to stop smoking services. Those at high risk (PLCO M2012 ≥1.51%) were offered annual low-dose CT screening over two rounds. Self-reported smoking status and behaviour were recorded at the LHC and again 12 months later, when attitudes to smoking were also assessed., Results: 919 participants (51% women) were included in the analysis (77% of attendees); median deprivation rank in the lowest decile for England. At baseline 50.3% were current smokers. One-year quit rate was 10.2%, quitting was associated with increased baseline symptoms ( adj OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.07-6.41; p = 0.035) but not demographics or screening results. 55% attributed quitting to the LHC. In current smokers, 44% reported the LHC had made them consider stopping, 29% it made them try to stop and 25% made them smoke less whilst only 1.7% and 0.7% said it made them worry less about smoking or think it acceptable to smoke., Conclusions: Our data suggest a community-based lung cancer screening programme in deprived areas positively impacts smoking behaviour, with no evidence of a 'licence to smoke' in those screened., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) is already available in certain parts of the world, such as the United States, but not yet in Europe. The recently published European position statement on lung cancer screening has recommended planning for implementation of screening to start within 18-months [1]. Pilot European programmes are already underway, primarily in the United Kingdom (UK), delivering lung cancer screening to their local populations. This review article acknowledges the evidence base for LDCT screening and will discuss the challenges that still need to be overcome in an attempt to answer the question: are we ready to implement in Europe?, (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a simple prognostic scoring system using readily available clinical and pathological variables that could stratify patients according to the risk of death following lung cancer resection. We hypothesized that by using additional pathological variables not accounted for by pathological stage alone coupled with markers of overall fitness a new prognostic tool could be developed., Methods: Multivariable logistic regression analysis of pathological and other clinical variables from patients undergoing surgical resection of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were used to determine factors independently associated with 2-year overall survival and so derive the scoring system. The model was then validated in an external multi-centre dataset., Results: Using multivariable logistic regression on a large dataset (n = 1,421) the 'LNC-PATH' (Lymphovascular invasion, N-stage, adjuvant Chemotherapy, Performance status, Age, T-stage, Histology) prognostic score was devised and then validated using an external dataset (n = 402). This can be used to risk stratify patients into low, moderate and high-risk groups with a statistically significant difference between the three groups in their survival distributions. 83.8% of patients in the low-risk group survived two years after surgery compared to 55.6% in the moderate-risk group and 26.2% in the high-risk group. The score was shown to perform moderately well with an Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) value of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.73-0.79) and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.64-0.76) in the derivation and validation cohorts respectively., Discussion: The LNC-PATH score predicts 2-year overall survival after surgery for NSCLC. This may allow the development of risk stratified follow-up protocols in survivorship clinics which could be the subject of future prospective studies., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) allows access to the inferior mediastinal lymph node stations (8 and 9) which are beyond the reach of endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS). The addition of EUS to EBUS procedures requires cost and resource investment. This study sought to describe the prevalence of station 8/9 nodal metastases from intra-operative lymph node sampling in a UK region where routine pre-operative EUS is not available., Methods: A retrospective review of all lung cancer resections at the University Hospital South Manchester from 2011 to 2014. Surgical variables, pre-operative PET variables and survival outcomes were collected and analysed., Results: 1421 surgical resections were performed in the study period. Lymph node stations 8 and/or 9 were sampled in 52% (736/1421) of patients. Overall, there were 34 patients with lymph node metastases at station 8/9. This represents 2.4% of the study populations and 4.6% of patients in whom stations 8/9 were sampled intra-operatively. Of those patients with station 8/9 metastases, 65% (22/34) had multi-station N2 disease and the majority of the additional N2 disease was present in EBUS-accessible areas (lymph node stations 2, 4 and 7). Two percent (16/736) of patients in whom station 8/9 lymph nodes were sampled intra-operatively had N2 disease that was only accessible endoscopically with EUS. There was no significant difference in overall survival in patients with pathological N2 disease stratified according to whether stations 8/9 were involved or not., Conclusions: The prevalence of lymph node metastases in stations 8/9 in this UK surgical centre where routine pre-operative EUS is not performed is low at approximately 5%. Given the identification of N2 disease in two-thirds of these patients can potentially be achieved through EBUS alone, this questions whether the resource implications of EUS are justified by the impact on patient management., (Crown Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)