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

BackgroundThe US guidelines recommend low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening for high-risk individuals. New solid nodules after baseline screening are common and have a high lung cancer probability. Currently, no evidence exists concerning the risk stratification of non-resolving new solid nodules at first LDCT screening after initial detection.MethodsIn the Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening (NELSON) trial, 7295 participants underwent the second and 6922 participants the third screening round. We included participants with solid nodules that were registered as new or <15 mm³ (study detection limit) at previous screens and received additional screening after initial detection, thereby excluding high-risk nodules according to the NELSON management protocol (nodules ≥500 mm3).ResultsOverall, 680 participants with 1020 low-risk and intermediate-risk new solid nodules were included. A total of 562 (55%) new solid nodules were resolving, leaving 356 (52%) participants with a non-resolving new solid nodule, of whom 25 (7%) were diagnosed with lung cancer. At first screening after initial detection, volume doubling time (VDT), volume, and VDT combined with a predefined ≥200 mm3 volume cut-off had high discrimination for lung cancer (VDT, area under the curve (AUC): 0.913; volume, AUC: 0.875; VDT and ≥200 mm3 combination, AUC: 0.939). Classifying a new solid nodule with either ≤590 days VDT or ≥200 mm3 volume positive provided 100% sensitivity, 84% specificity and 27% positive predictive value for lung cancer.ConclusionsMore than half of new low-risk and intermediate-risk solid nodules in LDCT lung cancer screening resolve. At follow-up, growth assessment potentially combined with a volume limit can be used for risk stratification.Trial registration numberISRCTN63545820; pre-results.

Download Full-text

Use of a marketing plan for recruitment to a lung cancer screening study.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.1548 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 1548-1548

Author(s):

John R. Goffin ◽

Gregory Russell Pond ◽

Alain Tremblay ◽

Michael R. Johnston ◽

Glenwood D. Goss ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Lung Cancer ◽

Cancer Screening ◽

Multivariable Analysis ◽

Lung Cancer Screening ◽

Marketing Plan ◽

Cancer Trial ◽

Chi Squared ◽

Screening Study ◽

Autofluorescence Bronchoscopy ◽

Clinical Trial Information

1548 Background: Recruitment to clinic trials is typically poor. Among barriers to recruitment may be the limited knowledge of trialists with respect to marketing techniques. Improvements in marketing could decrease recruitment time and shorten the time to access new interventions. We hypothesized that a marketing plan would improve recruitment to a lung cancer screening study. Methods: The Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Trial recruited subjects from 8 centres to a screening study of low-dose CT scan and autofluorescence bronchoscopy. Recruitment processes were undertaken independently at each centre. One centre (M) used marketing expertise and a marketing plan, including surveying study candidates for motivators, resulting in specific newsprint advertisements. Screened trial candidates provided demographic and tobacco use data and indicated how they had heard about the study (bus, friend/family, MD, mail, newsprint, radio, TV, other). No site paid for radio or TV time. We used regression analyses to assess whether newsprint advertisements were more effective for recruitment at site M compared with all other sites. Results: From 2008 to 2010, 7059 candidates contacted all centres for eligibility screening, including 779 at centre M. Overall, 50.2% were female; median age was 59 yrs. Compared with other centres, candidates at centre M had less education (p < 0.001), a higher median 3-year lung cancer risk (2.3 vs 2.0%, p < 0.001), but were more likely to have learned of the study by newsprint (58.8 vs 53.3%, chi-squared p = 0.004), and were more likely to be recruited (44.0 vs 34.9%, p < 0.001). It was more likely that newsprint was the driver for screening contact among candidates with higher education level (OR 1.05/level), higher age (OR 1.03 / yr) and contact at site M (OR 1.31) (all < 0.001). Recruitment after eligibility screening was higher when newsprint was the driver for contact on univariable but not multivariable analysis. Conclusions: The effectiveness of newsprint advertising in motivating study contact may be improved by the formal use of marketing expertise. Newsprint advertising may improve the likelihood of recruitment after study screening, possibly through improved initial self-screening by the candidate. Clinical trial information: NCT00751660.

Download Full-text