Cargando…

USPSTF2013 versus PLCOm2012 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria (International Lung Screening Trial): interim analysis of a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is a major health problem. CT lung screening can reduce lung cancer mortality through early diagnosis by at least 20%. Screening high-risk individuals is most effective. Retrospective analyses suggest that identifying individuals for screening by accurate prediction models is...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tammemägi, Martin C, Ruparel, Mamta, Tremblay, Alain, Myers, Renelle, Mayo, John, Yee, John, Atkar-Khattra, Sukhinder, Yuan, Ren, Cressman, Sonya, English, John, Bedard, Eric, MacEachern, Paul, Burrowes, Paul, Quaife, Samantha L, Marshall, Henry, Yang, Ian, Bowman, Rayleen, Passmore, Linda, McWilliams, Annette, Brims, Fraser, Lim, Kuan Pin, Mo, Lin, Melsom, Stephen, Saffar, Bann, Teh, Mark, Sheehan, Ramon, Kuok, Yijin, Manser, Renee, Irving, Louis, Steinfort, Daniel, McCusker, Mark, Pascoe, Diane, Fogarty, Paul, Stone, Emily, Lam, David C L, Ng, Ming-Yen, Vardhanabhuti, Varut, Berg, Christine D, Hung, Rayjean J, Janes, Samuel M, Fong, Kwun, Lam, Stephen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lancet Pub. Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8716337/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34902336
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00590-8
_version_ 1784624302759346176
author Tammemägi, Martin C
Ruparel, Mamta
Tremblay, Alain
Myers, Renelle
Mayo, John
Yee, John
Atkar-Khattra, Sukhinder
Yuan, Ren
Cressman, Sonya
English, John
Bedard, Eric
MacEachern, Paul
Burrowes, Paul
Quaife, Samantha L
Marshall, Henry
Yang, Ian
Bowman, Rayleen
Passmore, Linda
McWilliams, Annette
Brims, Fraser
Lim, Kuan Pin
Mo, Lin
Melsom, Stephen
Saffar, Bann
Teh, Mark
Sheehan, Ramon
Kuok, Yijin
Manser, Renee
Irving, Louis
Steinfort, Daniel
McCusker, Mark
Pascoe, Diane
Fogarty, Paul
Stone, Emily
Lam, David C L
Ng, Ming-Yen
Vardhanabhuti, Varut
Berg, Christine D
Hung, Rayjean J
Janes, Samuel M
Fong, Kwun
Lam, Stephen
author_facet Tammemägi, Martin C
Ruparel, Mamta
Tremblay, Alain
Myers, Renelle
Mayo, John
Yee, John
Atkar-Khattra, Sukhinder
Yuan, Ren
Cressman, Sonya
English, John
Bedard, Eric
MacEachern, Paul
Burrowes, Paul
Quaife, Samantha L
Marshall, Henry
Yang, Ian
Bowman, Rayleen
Passmore, Linda
McWilliams, Annette
Brims, Fraser
Lim, Kuan Pin
Mo, Lin
Melsom, Stephen
Saffar, Bann
Teh, Mark
Sheehan, Ramon
Kuok, Yijin
Manser, Renee
Irving, Louis
Steinfort, Daniel
McCusker, Mark
Pascoe, Diane
Fogarty, Paul
Stone, Emily
Lam, David C L
Ng, Ming-Yen
Vardhanabhuti, Varut
Berg, Christine D
Hung, Rayjean J
Janes, Samuel M
Fong, Kwun
Lam, Stephen
author_sort Tammemägi, Martin C
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is a major health problem. CT lung screening can reduce lung cancer mortality through early diagnosis by at least 20%. Screening high-risk individuals is most effective. Retrospective analyses suggest that identifying individuals for screening by accurate prediction models is more efficient than using categorical age-smoking criteria, such as the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. This study prospectively compared the effectiveness of the USPSTF2013 and PLCOm2012 model eligibility criteria. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, participants from the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST), aged 55–80 years, who were current or former smokers (ie, had ≥30 pack-years smoking history or ≤15 quit-years since last permanently quitting), and who met USPSTF2013 criteria or a PLCOm2012 risk threshold of at least 1·51% within 6 years of screening, were recruited from nine screening sites in Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, and the UK. After enrolment, patients were assessed with the USPSTF2013 criteria and the PLCOm2012 risk model with a threshold of at least 1·70% at 6 years. Data were collected locally and centralised. Main outcomes were the comparison of lung cancer detection rates and cumulative life expectancies in patients with lung cancer between USPSTF2013 criteria and the PLCOm2012 model. In this Article, we present data from an interim analysis. To estimate the incidence of lung cancers in individuals who were USPSTF2013-negative and had PLCOm2012 of less than 1·51% at 6 years, ever-smokers in the Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) who met these criteria and their lung cancer incidence were applied to the ILST sample size for the mean follow-up occurring in the ILST. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02871856. Study enrolment is almost complete. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2015, and Dec 29, 2020, 5819 participants from the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST) were enrolled on the basis of meeting USPSTF2013 criteria or the PLCOm2012 risk threshold of at least 1·51% at 6 years. The same number of individuals was selected for the PLCOm2012 model as for the USPSTF2013 criteria (4540 [78%] of 5819). After a mean follow-up of 2·3 years (SD 1·0), 135 lung cancers occurred in 4540 USPSTF2013-positive participants and 162 in 4540 participants included in the PLCOm2012 of at least 1·70% at 6 years group (cancer sensitivity difference 15·8%, 95% CI 10·7–22·1%; absolute odds ratio 4·00, 95% CI 1·89–9·44; p<0·0001). Compared to USPSTF2013-positive individuals, PLCOm2012-selected participants were older (mean age 65·7 years [SD 5·9] vs 63·3 years [5·7]; p<0·0001), had more comorbidities (median 2 [IQR 1–3] vs 1 [1–2]; p<0·0001), and shorter life expectancy (13·9 years [95% CI 12·8–14·9] vs 14·8 [13·6–16·0] years). Model-based difference in cumulative life expectancies for those diagnosed with lung cancer were higher in those who had PLCOm2012 risk of at least 1·70% at 6 years than individuals who were USPSTF2013-positive (2248·6 years [95% CI 2089·6–2425·9] vs 2000·7 years [1841·2–2160·3]; difference 247·9 years, p=0·015). INTERPRETATION: PLCOm2012 appears to be more efficient than the USPSTF2013 criteria for selecting individuals to enrol into lung cancer screening programmes and should be used for identifying high-risk individuals who benefit from the inclusion in these programmes. FUNDING: Terry Fox Research Institute, The UBC-VGH Hospital Foundation and the BC Cancer Foundation, the Alberta Cancer Foundation, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK and a consortium of funders, and the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation for the UK Lung Screen Uptake Trial.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8716337
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Lancet Pub. Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87163372022-01-05 USPSTF2013 versus PLCOm2012 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria (International Lung Screening Trial): interim analysis of a prospective cohort study Tammemägi, Martin C Ruparel, Mamta Tremblay, Alain Myers, Renelle Mayo, John Yee, John Atkar-Khattra, Sukhinder Yuan, Ren Cressman, Sonya English, John Bedard, Eric MacEachern, Paul Burrowes, Paul Quaife, Samantha L Marshall, Henry Yang, Ian Bowman, Rayleen Passmore, Linda McWilliams, Annette Brims, Fraser Lim, Kuan Pin Mo, Lin Melsom, Stephen Saffar, Bann Teh, Mark Sheehan, Ramon Kuok, Yijin Manser, Renee Irving, Louis Steinfort, Daniel McCusker, Mark Pascoe, Diane Fogarty, Paul Stone, Emily Lam, David C L Ng, Ming-Yen Vardhanabhuti, Varut Berg, Christine D Hung, Rayjean J Janes, Samuel M Fong, Kwun Lam, Stephen Lancet Oncol Articles BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is a major health problem. CT lung screening can reduce lung cancer mortality through early diagnosis by at least 20%. Screening high-risk individuals is most effective. Retrospective analyses suggest that identifying individuals for screening by accurate prediction models is more efficient than using categorical age-smoking criteria, such as the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. This study prospectively compared the effectiveness of the USPSTF2013 and PLCOm2012 model eligibility criteria. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, participants from the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST), aged 55–80 years, who were current or former smokers (ie, had ≥30 pack-years smoking history or ≤15 quit-years since last permanently quitting), and who met USPSTF2013 criteria or a PLCOm2012 risk threshold of at least 1·51% within 6 years of screening, were recruited from nine screening sites in Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, and the UK. After enrolment, patients were assessed with the USPSTF2013 criteria and the PLCOm2012 risk model with a threshold of at least 1·70% at 6 years. Data were collected locally and centralised. Main outcomes were the comparison of lung cancer detection rates and cumulative life expectancies in patients with lung cancer between USPSTF2013 criteria and the PLCOm2012 model. In this Article, we present data from an interim analysis. To estimate the incidence of lung cancers in individuals who were USPSTF2013-negative and had PLCOm2012 of less than 1·51% at 6 years, ever-smokers in the Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) who met these criteria and their lung cancer incidence were applied to the ILST sample size for the mean follow-up occurring in the ILST. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02871856. Study enrolment is almost complete. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2015, and Dec 29, 2020, 5819 participants from the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST) were enrolled on the basis of meeting USPSTF2013 criteria or the PLCOm2012 risk threshold of at least 1·51% at 6 years. The same number of individuals was selected for the PLCOm2012 model as for the USPSTF2013 criteria (4540 [78%] of 5819). After a mean follow-up of 2·3 years (SD 1·0), 135 lung cancers occurred in 4540 USPSTF2013-positive participants and 162 in 4540 participants included in the PLCOm2012 of at least 1·70% at 6 years group (cancer sensitivity difference 15·8%, 95% CI 10·7–22·1%; absolute odds ratio 4·00, 95% CI 1·89–9·44; p<0·0001). Compared to USPSTF2013-positive individuals, PLCOm2012-selected participants were older (mean age 65·7 years [SD 5·9] vs 63·3 years [5·7]; p<0·0001), had more comorbidities (median 2 [IQR 1–3] vs 1 [1–2]; p<0·0001), and shorter life expectancy (13·9 years [95% CI 12·8–14·9] vs 14·8 [13·6–16·0] years). Model-based difference in cumulative life expectancies for those diagnosed with lung cancer were higher in those who had PLCOm2012 risk of at least 1·70% at 6 years than individuals who were USPSTF2013-positive (2248·6 years [95% CI 2089·6–2425·9] vs 2000·7 years [1841·2–2160·3]; difference 247·9 years, p=0·015). INTERPRETATION: PLCOm2012 appears to be more efficient than the USPSTF2013 criteria for selecting individuals to enrol into lung cancer screening programmes and should be used for identifying high-risk individuals who benefit from the inclusion in these programmes. FUNDING: Terry Fox Research Institute, The UBC-VGH Hospital Foundation and the BC Cancer Foundation, the Alberta Cancer Foundation, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK and a consortium of funders, and the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation for the UK Lung Screen Uptake Trial. Lancet Pub. Group 2022-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8716337/ /pubmed/34902336 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00590-8 Text en © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Articles
Tammemägi, Martin C
Ruparel, Mamta
Tremblay, Alain
Myers, Renelle
Mayo, John
Yee, John
Atkar-Khattra, Sukhinder
Yuan, Ren
Cressman, Sonya
English, John
Bedard, Eric
MacEachern, Paul
Burrowes, Paul
Quaife, Samantha L
Marshall, Henry
Yang, Ian
Bowman, Rayleen
Passmore, Linda
McWilliams, Annette
Brims, Fraser
Lim, Kuan Pin
Mo, Lin
Melsom, Stephen
Saffar, Bann
Teh, Mark
Sheehan, Ramon
Kuok, Yijin
Manser, Renee
Irving, Louis
Steinfort, Daniel
McCusker, Mark
Pascoe, Diane
Fogarty, Paul
Stone, Emily
Lam, David C L
Ng, Ming-Yen
Vardhanabhuti, Varut
Berg, Christine D
Hung, Rayjean J
Janes, Samuel M
Fong, Kwun
Lam, Stephen
USPSTF2013 versus PLCOm2012 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria (International Lung Screening Trial): interim analysis of a prospective cohort study
title USPSTF2013 versus PLCOm2012 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria (International Lung Screening Trial): interim analysis of a prospective cohort study
title_full USPSTF2013 versus PLCOm2012 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria (International Lung Screening Trial): interim analysis of a prospective cohort study
title_fullStr USPSTF2013 versus PLCOm2012 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria (International Lung Screening Trial): interim analysis of a prospective cohort study
title_full_unstemmed USPSTF2013 versus PLCOm2012 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria (International Lung Screening Trial): interim analysis of a prospective cohort study
title_short USPSTF2013 versus PLCOm2012 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria (International Lung Screening Trial): interim analysis of a prospective cohort study
title_sort uspstf2013 versus plcom2012 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria (international lung screening trial): interim analysis of a prospective cohort study
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8716337/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34902336
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00590-8
work_keys_str_mv AT tammemagimartinc uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT ruparelmamta uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT tremblayalain uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT myersrenelle uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT mayojohn uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT yeejohn uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT atkarkhattrasukhinder uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT yuanren uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT cressmansonya uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT englishjohn uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT bedarderic uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT maceachernpaul uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT burrowespaul uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT quaifesamanthal uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT marshallhenry uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT yangian uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT bowmanrayleen uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT passmorelinda uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT mcwilliamsannette uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT brimsfraser uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT limkuanpin uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT molin uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT melsomstephen uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT saffarbann uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT tehmark uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT sheehanramon uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT kuokyijin uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT manserrenee uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT irvinglouis uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT steinfortdaniel uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT mccuskermark uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT pascoediane uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT fogartypaul uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT stoneemily uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT lamdavidcl uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT ngmingyen uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT vardhanabhutivarut uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT bergchristined uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT hungrayjeanj uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT janessamuelm uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT fongkwun uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy
AT lamstephen uspstf2013versusplcom2012lungcancerscreeningeligibilitycriteriainternationallungscreeningtrialinterimanalysisofaprospectivecohortstudy