Lung Cancer

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When the American Cancer Society recently unveiled changes to its lung cancer screening guidance, the aim was to remove barriers to screening and catch more cancers in high-risk people earlier.

Although the lung cancer death rate has declined significantly over the past few decades, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide.

Detecting lung cancer early is key to improving survival. Still, lung cancer screening rates are poor. In 2021, the American Lung Association estimated that 14 million US adults qualified for lung cancer screening, but only 5.8% received it.

Smokers or former smokers without symptoms may forgo regular screening and only receive their screening scan after symptoms emerge, explained Janani S. Reisenauer, MD, Division Chair of Thoracic Surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. But by the time symptoms develop, the cancer is typically more advanced, and treatment options become more limited.

The goal of the new American Cancer Society guidelines, published in early November 2023 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Physicians, is to identify lung cancers at earlier stages when they are easier to treat.

The new guidelines, which update a 2013 version, expand the eligibility age for screening and the pool of current and former smokers who qualify for annual screening with low-dose CT. Almost 5 million more high-risk people will now qualify for regular lung cancer screening, the guideline authors estimated.

But will expanding screening help reduce deaths from lung cancer? And perhaps just as important, will the guidelines move the needle on the “disappointingly low” lung cancer screening rates up to this point?

“I definitely think it’s a step in the right direction,” said Lecia V. Sequist, MD, MPH, clinical researcher and lung cancer medical oncologist, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts.

The new guidelines lowered the age for annual lung cancer screening among asymptomatic former or current smokers from 55-74 years to 50-80 years. The update also now considers a high-risk person anyone with a 20-pack-year history, down from a 30-pack-year history, and removes the requirement that former smokers must have quit within 15 years to be eligible for screening.

As people age, their risk for lung cancer increases, so it makes sense to screen all former smokers regardless of when they quit, explained Kim Lori Sandler, MD, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, and cochair of the American College of Radiology’s Lung Cancer Screening Steering Committee.

“There’s really nothing magical or drastic that happens at the 15-year mark,” Dr. Sequist agreed. For “someone who quit 14 years ago versus 16 years ago, it is essentially the same risk, and so scientifically it doesn’t really make sense to impose an artificial cut-off where no change in risk exists.”

The latest evidence reviewed in the new guidelines shows that expanding the guidelines would identify more early-stage cancers and potentially save lives. The authors modeled the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening using several scenarios.

Moving the start age from 55 to 50 years would lead to a 15% reduction in lung cancer mortality in men aged 50-54 years, the model suggested.

Removing the 15-year timeline for quitting smoking also would also improve outcomes. Compared with scenarios that included the 15-year quit timeline for former smokers, those that removed the limit would result in a 37.3% increase in screening exams, a 21% increase in would avert lung cancer deaths, and offer a 19% increase in life-years gained per 100,000 population.

Overall, the evidence indicates that, “if fully implemented, these recommendations have a high likelihood of significantly reducing death and suffering from lung cancer in the United States,” the guideline authors wrote.

But screening more people also comes with risks, such as more false-positive findings, which could lead to extra scans, invasive tests for tissue sampling, or even procedures for benign disease, Dr. Sandler explained. The latter “is what we really need to avoid.”

Even so, Dr. Sandler believes the current guidelines show that the benefit of screening “is great enough that it’s worth including these additional individuals.”
 

Guidelines Are Not Enough

But will expanding the screening criteria prompt more eligible individuals to receive their CT scans?

Simply expanding the eligibility criteria, by itself, likely won’t measurably improve screening uptake, said Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, of Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, New York.

Healthcare and insurance access along with patient demand may present the most significant barriers to improving screening uptake.

The “issue is not the guideline as much as it’s the healthcare system,” said Otis W. Brawley, MD, professor of oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Access to screening at hospitals with limited CT scanners and staff could present one major issue.

When Dr. Brawley worked at a large inner-city safety net hospital in Atlanta, patients with lung cancer frequently had to wait over a week to use one of the four CT scanners, he recalled. Adding to these delays, we didn’t have enough people to read the screens or enough people to do the diagnostics for those who had abnormalities, said Dr. Brawley.

To increase lung cancer screening in this context would increase the wait time for patients who do have cancer, he said.

Insurance coverage could present a roadblock for some as well. While the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations largely align with the new ones from the American Cancer Society, there’s one key difference: The USPSTF still requires former smokers to have quit within 15 years to be eligible for annual screening.

Because the USPSTF recommendations dictate insurance coverage, some former smokers — those who quit more than 15 years ago — may not qualify for coverage and would have to pay out-of-pocket for screening.

Dr. Sequist, however, had a more optimistic outlook about screening uptake.

The American Cancer Society guidelines should remove some of the stigma surrounding lung cancer screening. Most people, when asked a lot of questions about their tobacco use and history, tend to downplay it because there’s shame associated with smoking, Dr. Sequist said. The new guidelines limit the information needed to determine eligibility.

Dr. Sequist also noted that the updated American Cancer Society guideline would improve screening rates because it simplifies the eligibility criteria and makes it easier for physicians to determine who qualifies.

The issue, however, is that some of these individuals — those who quit over 15 years ago — may not have their scan covered by insurance, which could preclude lower-income individuals from getting screened.

The American Cancer Society guidelines” do not necessarily translate into a change in policy,” which is “dictated by the USPSTF and payors such as Medicare,” explained Peter Mazzone, MD, MPH, director of the Lung Cancer Program and Lung Cancer Screening Program for the Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

On the patient side, Dr. Brawley noted, “we don’t yet have a large demand” for screening.

Many current and former smokers may put off lung cancer screening or not seek it out. Some may be unaware of their eligibility, while others may fear the outcome of a scan. Even among eligible individuals who do receive an initial scan, most — more than 75% — do not return for their next scan a year later, research showed.

Enhancing patient education and launching strong marketing campaigns would be a key element to encourage more people to get their annual screening and reduce the stigma associated with lung cancer as a smoker’s disease.

“Primary care physicians are integral in ensuring all eligible patients receive appropriate screening for lung cancer,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians and a family physician in Jackson, Alabama. “It is imperative that family physicians encourage screening in at-risk patients and counsel them on the importance of continued screening, as well as smoking cessation, if needed.”

Two authors of the new guidelines reported financial relationships with Seno Medical Instruments, the Genentech Foundation, Crispr Therapeutics, BEAM Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, Editas Medicine, Freenome, and Guardant Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When the American Cancer Society recently unveiled changes to its lung cancer screening guidance, the aim was to remove barriers to screening and catch more cancers in high-risk people earlier.

Although the lung cancer death rate has declined significantly over the past few decades, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide.

Detecting lung cancer early is key to improving survival. Still, lung cancer screening rates are poor. In 2021, the American Lung Association estimated that 14 million US adults qualified for lung cancer screening, but only 5.8% received it.

Smokers or former smokers without symptoms may forgo regular screening and only receive their screening scan after symptoms emerge, explained Janani S. Reisenauer, MD, Division Chair of Thoracic Surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. But by the time symptoms develop, the cancer is typically more advanced, and treatment options become more limited.

The goal of the new American Cancer Society guidelines, published in early November 2023 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Physicians, is to identify lung cancers at earlier stages when they are easier to treat.

The new guidelines, which update a 2013 version, expand the eligibility age for screening and the pool of current and former smokers who qualify for annual screening with low-dose CT. Almost 5 million more high-risk people will now qualify for regular lung cancer screening, the guideline authors estimated.

But will expanding screening help reduce deaths from lung cancer? And perhaps just as important, will the guidelines move the needle on the “disappointingly low” lung cancer screening rates up to this point?

“I definitely think it’s a step in the right direction,” said Lecia V. Sequist, MD, MPH, clinical researcher and lung cancer medical oncologist, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts.

The new guidelines lowered the age for annual lung cancer screening among asymptomatic former or current smokers from 55-74 years to 50-80 years. The update also now considers a high-risk person anyone with a 20-pack-year history, down from a 30-pack-year history, and removes the requirement that former smokers must have quit within 15 years to be eligible for screening.

As people age, their risk for lung cancer increases, so it makes sense to screen all former smokers regardless of when they quit, explained Kim Lori Sandler, MD, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, and cochair of the American College of Radiology’s Lung Cancer Screening Steering Committee.

“There’s really nothing magical or drastic that happens at the 15-year mark,” Dr. Sequist agreed. For “someone who quit 14 years ago versus 16 years ago, it is essentially the same risk, and so scientifically it doesn’t really make sense to impose an artificial cut-off where no change in risk exists.”

The latest evidence reviewed in the new guidelines shows that expanding the guidelines would identify more early-stage cancers and potentially save lives. The authors modeled the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening using several scenarios.

Moving the start age from 55 to 50 years would lead to a 15% reduction in lung cancer mortality in men aged 50-54 years, the model suggested.

Removing the 15-year timeline for quitting smoking also would also improve outcomes. Compared with scenarios that included the 15-year quit timeline for former smokers, those that removed the limit would result in a 37.3% increase in screening exams, a 21% increase in would avert lung cancer deaths, and offer a 19% increase in life-years gained per 100,000 population.

Overall, the evidence indicates that, “if fully implemented, these recommendations have a high likelihood of significantly reducing death and suffering from lung cancer in the United States,” the guideline authors wrote.

But screening more people also comes with risks, such as more false-positive findings, which could lead to extra scans, invasive tests for tissue sampling, or even procedures for benign disease, Dr. Sandler explained. The latter “is what we really need to avoid.”

Even so, Dr. Sandler believes the current guidelines show that the benefit of screening “is great enough that it’s worth including these additional individuals.”
 

Guidelines Are Not Enough

But will expanding the screening criteria prompt more eligible individuals to receive their CT scans?

Simply expanding the eligibility criteria, by itself, likely won’t measurably improve screening uptake, said Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, of Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, New York.

Healthcare and insurance access along with patient demand may present the most significant barriers to improving screening uptake.

The “issue is not the guideline as much as it’s the healthcare system,” said Otis W. Brawley, MD, professor of oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Access to screening at hospitals with limited CT scanners and staff could present one major issue.

When Dr. Brawley worked at a large inner-city safety net hospital in Atlanta, patients with lung cancer frequently had to wait over a week to use one of the four CT scanners, he recalled. Adding to these delays, we didn’t have enough people to read the screens or enough people to do the diagnostics for those who had abnormalities, said Dr. Brawley.

To increase lung cancer screening in this context would increase the wait time for patients who do have cancer, he said.

Insurance coverage could present a roadblock for some as well. While the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations largely align with the new ones from the American Cancer Society, there’s one key difference: The USPSTF still requires former smokers to have quit within 15 years to be eligible for annual screening.

Because the USPSTF recommendations dictate insurance coverage, some former smokers — those who quit more than 15 years ago — may not qualify for coverage and would have to pay out-of-pocket for screening.

Dr. Sequist, however, had a more optimistic outlook about screening uptake.

The American Cancer Society guidelines should remove some of the stigma surrounding lung cancer screening. Most people, when asked a lot of questions about their tobacco use and history, tend to downplay it because there’s shame associated with smoking, Dr. Sequist said. The new guidelines limit the information needed to determine eligibility.

Dr. Sequist also noted that the updated American Cancer Society guideline would improve screening rates because it simplifies the eligibility criteria and makes it easier for physicians to determine who qualifies.

The issue, however, is that some of these individuals — those who quit over 15 years ago — may not have their scan covered by insurance, which could preclude lower-income individuals from getting screened.

The American Cancer Society guidelines” do not necessarily translate into a change in policy,” which is “dictated by the USPSTF and payors such as Medicare,” explained Peter Mazzone, MD, MPH, director of the Lung Cancer Program and Lung Cancer Screening Program for the Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

On the patient side, Dr. Brawley noted, “we don’t yet have a large demand” for screening.

Many current and former smokers may put off lung cancer screening or not seek it out. Some may be unaware of their eligibility, while others may fear the outcome of a scan. Even among eligible individuals who do receive an initial scan, most — more than 75% — do not return for their next scan a year later, research showed.

Enhancing patient education and launching strong marketing campaigns would be a key element to encourage more people to get their annual screening and reduce the stigma associated with lung cancer as a smoker’s disease.

“Primary care physicians are integral in ensuring all eligible patients receive appropriate screening for lung cancer,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians and a family physician in Jackson, Alabama. “It is imperative that family physicians encourage screening in at-risk patients and counsel them on the importance of continued screening, as well as smoking cessation, if needed.”

Two authors of the new guidelines reported financial relationships with Seno Medical Instruments, the Genentech Foundation, Crispr Therapeutics, BEAM Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, Editas Medicine, Freenome, and Guardant Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When the American Cancer Society recently unveiled changes to its lung cancer screening guidance, the aim was to remove barriers to screening and catch more cancers in high-risk people earlier.

Although the lung cancer death rate has declined significantly over the past few decades, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide.

Detecting lung cancer early is key to improving survival. Still, lung cancer screening rates are poor. In 2021, the American Lung Association estimated that 14 million US adults qualified for lung cancer screening, but only 5.8% received it.

Smokers or former smokers without symptoms may forgo regular screening and only receive their screening scan after symptoms emerge, explained Janani S. Reisenauer, MD, Division Chair of Thoracic Surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. But by the time symptoms develop, the cancer is typically more advanced, and treatment options become more limited.

The goal of the new American Cancer Society guidelines, published in early November 2023 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Physicians, is to identify lung cancers at earlier stages when they are easier to treat.

The new guidelines, which update a 2013 version, expand the eligibility age for screening and the pool of current and former smokers who qualify for annual screening with low-dose CT. Almost 5 million more high-risk people will now qualify for regular lung cancer screening, the guideline authors estimated.

But will expanding screening help reduce deaths from lung cancer? And perhaps just as important, will the guidelines move the needle on the “disappointingly low” lung cancer screening rates up to this point?

“I definitely think it’s a step in the right direction,” said Lecia V. Sequist, MD, MPH, clinical researcher and lung cancer medical oncologist, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts.

The new guidelines lowered the age for annual lung cancer screening among asymptomatic former or current smokers from 55-74 years to 50-80 years. The update also now considers a high-risk person anyone with a 20-pack-year history, down from a 30-pack-year history, and removes the requirement that former smokers must have quit within 15 years to be eligible for screening.

As people age, their risk for lung cancer increases, so it makes sense to screen all former smokers regardless of when they quit, explained Kim Lori Sandler, MD, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, and cochair of the American College of Radiology’s Lung Cancer Screening Steering Committee.

“There’s really nothing magical or drastic that happens at the 15-year mark,” Dr. Sequist agreed. For “someone who quit 14 years ago versus 16 years ago, it is essentially the same risk, and so scientifically it doesn’t really make sense to impose an artificial cut-off where no change in risk exists.”

The latest evidence reviewed in the new guidelines shows that expanding the guidelines would identify more early-stage cancers and potentially save lives. The authors modeled the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening using several scenarios.

Moving the start age from 55 to 50 years would lead to a 15% reduction in lung cancer mortality in men aged 50-54 years, the model suggested.

Removing the 15-year timeline for quitting smoking also would also improve outcomes. Compared with scenarios that included the 15-year quit timeline for former smokers, those that removed the limit would result in a 37.3% increase in screening exams, a 21% increase in would avert lung cancer deaths, and offer a 19% increase in life-years gained per 100,000 population.

Overall, the evidence indicates that, “if fully implemented, these recommendations have a high likelihood of significantly reducing death and suffering from lung cancer in the United States,” the guideline authors wrote.

But screening more people also comes with risks, such as more false-positive findings, which could lead to extra scans, invasive tests for tissue sampling, or even procedures for benign disease, Dr. Sandler explained. The latter “is what we really need to avoid.”

Even so, Dr. Sandler believes the current guidelines show that the benefit of screening “is great enough that it’s worth including these additional individuals.”
 

Guidelines Are Not Enough

But will expanding the screening criteria prompt more eligible individuals to receive their CT scans?

Simply expanding the eligibility criteria, by itself, likely won’t measurably improve screening uptake, said Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, of Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, New York.

Healthcare and insurance access along with patient demand may present the most significant barriers to improving screening uptake.

The “issue is not the guideline as much as it’s the healthcare system,” said Otis W. Brawley, MD, professor of oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Access to screening at hospitals with limited CT scanners and staff could present one major issue.

When Dr. Brawley worked at a large inner-city safety net hospital in Atlanta, patients with lung cancer frequently had to wait over a week to use one of the four CT scanners, he recalled. Adding to these delays, we didn’t have enough people to read the screens or enough people to do the diagnostics for those who had abnormalities, said Dr. Brawley.

To increase lung cancer screening in this context would increase the wait time for patients who do have cancer, he said.

Insurance coverage could present a roadblock for some as well. While the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations largely align with the new ones from the American Cancer Society, there’s one key difference: The USPSTF still requires former smokers to have quit within 15 years to be eligible for annual screening.

Because the USPSTF recommendations dictate insurance coverage, some former smokers — those who quit more than 15 years ago — may not qualify for coverage and would have to pay out-of-pocket for screening.

Dr. Sequist, however, had a more optimistic outlook about screening uptake.

The American Cancer Society guidelines should remove some of the stigma surrounding lung cancer screening. Most people, when asked a lot of questions about their tobacco use and history, tend to downplay it because there’s shame associated with smoking, Dr. Sequist said. The new guidelines limit the information needed to determine eligibility.

Dr. Sequist also noted that the updated American Cancer Society guideline would improve screening rates because it simplifies the eligibility criteria and makes it easier for physicians to determine who qualifies.

The issue, however, is that some of these individuals — those who quit over 15 years ago — may not have their scan covered by insurance, which could preclude lower-income individuals from getting screened.

The American Cancer Society guidelines” do not necessarily translate into a change in policy,” which is “dictated by the USPSTF and payors such as Medicare,” explained Peter Mazzone, MD, MPH, director of the Lung Cancer Program and Lung Cancer Screening Program for the Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

On the patient side, Dr. Brawley noted, “we don’t yet have a large demand” for screening.

Many current and former smokers may put off lung cancer screening or not seek it out. Some may be unaware of their eligibility, while others may fear the outcome of a scan. Even among eligible individuals who do receive an initial scan, most — more than 75% — do not return for their next scan a year later, research showed.

Enhancing patient education and launching strong marketing campaigns would be a key element to encourage more people to get their annual screening and reduce the stigma associated with lung cancer as a smoker’s disease.

“Primary care physicians are integral in ensuring all eligible patients receive appropriate screening for lung cancer,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians and a family physician in Jackson, Alabama. “It is imperative that family physicians encourage screening in at-risk patients and counsel them on the importance of continued screening, as well as smoking cessation, if needed.”

Two authors of the new guidelines reported financial relationships with Seno Medical Instruments, the Genentech Foundation, Crispr Therapeutics, BEAM Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, Editas Medicine, Freenome, and Guardant Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer in the world, largely because so many patients are diagnosed late.

Screening more patients could help, yet screening rates remain critically low. In the United States, only about 6% of eligible people get screened , according to the American Lung Association. Contrast that with screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, which all top 70%.

But what if lung cancer detection was as simple as taking a puff on an inhaler and following up with a urine test?

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts, have developed nanosensors that target lung cancer proteins and can be delivered via inhaler or nebulizer, according to research published this month in Science Advances. If the sensors spot these proteins, they produce a signal in the urine that can be detected with a paper test strip.

“It’s a more complex version of a pregnancy test, but it’s very simple to use,” said Qian Zhong, PhD, an MIT researcher and co-lead author of the study.

Currently, the only recommended screening test for lung cancer is low-dose CT. But not everyone has easy access to screening facilities, said the other co-lead author Edward Tan, PhD, a former MIT postdoc and currently a scientist at the biotech company Prime Medicine, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“Our focus is to provide an alternative for the early detection of lung cancer that does not rely on resource-intensive infrastructure,” said Dr. Tan. “Most developing countries don’t have such resources” — and residents in some parts of the United States don’t have easy access, either, he said.
 

How It Works

The sensors are polymer nanoparticles coated in DNA barcodes, short DNA sequences that are unique and easy to identify. The researchers engineered the particles to be targeted by protease enzymes linked to stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Upon contact, the proteases cleave off the barcodes, which make their way into the bloodstream and are excreted in urine. A test strip can detect them, revealing results about 20 minutes from the time it’s dipped.

The researchers tested this system in mice genetically engineered to develop human-like lung tumors. Using aerosol nebulizers, they delivered 20 sensors to mice with the equivalent of stage I or II cancer. Using a machine learning algorithm, they identified the four most accurate sensors. With 100% specificity, those four sensors exhibited sensitivity of 84.6%.

“One advantage of using inhalation is that it’s noninvasive, and another advantage is that it distributes across the lung quite homogeneously,” said Dr. Tan. The time from inhalation to detection is also relatively fast — in mice, the whole process took about 2 hours, and Dr. Zhong speculated that it would not be much longer in humans.
 

Other Applications and Challenges

An injectable version of this technology, also developed at MIT, has already been tested in a phase 1 clinical trial for diagnosing liver cancer and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The injection also works in tandem with a urine test, the researchers showed in 2021. According to Tan, his research group (led by  Sangeeta Bhatia, MD, PhD) was the first to describe this type of technology to screen for diseases.

The lab is also working toward using inhalable sensors to distinguish between viral, bacterial, and fungal pneumonia. And the technology could also be used to diagnose other lung conditions like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Tan said.

The tech is certainly “innovative,” remarked Gaetano Rocco, MD, a thoracic surgeon and lung cancer researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, who was not involved in the study.

Still, challenges may arise when applying it to people. Many factors are involved in regulating fluid volume, potentially interfering with the ability to detect the compounds in the urine, Rocco said. Diet, hydration, drug interference, renal function, and some chronic diseases could all limit effectiveness.

Another challenge: Human cancer can be more heterogeneous (containing different kinds of cancer cells), so four sensors may not be enough, Zhong said. He and colleagues are beginning to analyze human biopsy samples to see whether the same sensors that worked in mice would also work in humans. If all goes well, they hope to do studies on humans or nonhuman primates.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer in the world, largely because so many patients are diagnosed late.

Screening more patients could help, yet screening rates remain critically low. In the United States, only about 6% of eligible people get screened , according to the American Lung Association. Contrast that with screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, which all top 70%.

But what if lung cancer detection was as simple as taking a puff on an inhaler and following up with a urine test?

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts, have developed nanosensors that target lung cancer proteins and can be delivered via inhaler or nebulizer, according to research published this month in Science Advances. If the sensors spot these proteins, they produce a signal in the urine that can be detected with a paper test strip.

“It’s a more complex version of a pregnancy test, but it’s very simple to use,” said Qian Zhong, PhD, an MIT researcher and co-lead author of the study.

Currently, the only recommended screening test for lung cancer is low-dose CT. But not everyone has easy access to screening facilities, said the other co-lead author Edward Tan, PhD, a former MIT postdoc and currently a scientist at the biotech company Prime Medicine, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“Our focus is to provide an alternative for the early detection of lung cancer that does not rely on resource-intensive infrastructure,” said Dr. Tan. “Most developing countries don’t have such resources” — and residents in some parts of the United States don’t have easy access, either, he said.
 

How It Works

The sensors are polymer nanoparticles coated in DNA barcodes, short DNA sequences that are unique and easy to identify. The researchers engineered the particles to be targeted by protease enzymes linked to stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Upon contact, the proteases cleave off the barcodes, which make their way into the bloodstream and are excreted in urine. A test strip can detect them, revealing results about 20 minutes from the time it’s dipped.

The researchers tested this system in mice genetically engineered to develop human-like lung tumors. Using aerosol nebulizers, they delivered 20 sensors to mice with the equivalent of stage I or II cancer. Using a machine learning algorithm, they identified the four most accurate sensors. With 100% specificity, those four sensors exhibited sensitivity of 84.6%.

“One advantage of using inhalation is that it’s noninvasive, and another advantage is that it distributes across the lung quite homogeneously,” said Dr. Tan. The time from inhalation to detection is also relatively fast — in mice, the whole process took about 2 hours, and Dr. Zhong speculated that it would not be much longer in humans.
 

Other Applications and Challenges

An injectable version of this technology, also developed at MIT, has already been tested in a phase 1 clinical trial for diagnosing liver cancer and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The injection also works in tandem with a urine test, the researchers showed in 2021. According to Tan, his research group (led by  Sangeeta Bhatia, MD, PhD) was the first to describe this type of technology to screen for diseases.

The lab is also working toward using inhalable sensors to distinguish between viral, bacterial, and fungal pneumonia. And the technology could also be used to diagnose other lung conditions like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Tan said.

The tech is certainly “innovative,” remarked Gaetano Rocco, MD, a thoracic surgeon and lung cancer researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, who was not involved in the study.

Still, challenges may arise when applying it to people. Many factors are involved in regulating fluid volume, potentially interfering with the ability to detect the compounds in the urine, Rocco said. Diet, hydration, drug interference, renal function, and some chronic diseases could all limit effectiveness.

Another challenge: Human cancer can be more heterogeneous (containing different kinds of cancer cells), so four sensors may not be enough, Zhong said. He and colleagues are beginning to analyze human biopsy samples to see whether the same sensors that worked in mice would also work in humans. If all goes well, they hope to do studies on humans or nonhuman primates.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer in the world, largely because so many patients are diagnosed late.

Screening more patients could help, yet screening rates remain critically low. In the United States, only about 6% of eligible people get screened , according to the American Lung Association. Contrast that with screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, which all top 70%.

But what if lung cancer detection was as simple as taking a puff on an inhaler and following up with a urine test?

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts, have developed nanosensors that target lung cancer proteins and can be delivered via inhaler or nebulizer, according to research published this month in Science Advances. If the sensors spot these proteins, they produce a signal in the urine that can be detected with a paper test strip.

“It’s a more complex version of a pregnancy test, but it’s very simple to use,” said Qian Zhong, PhD, an MIT researcher and co-lead author of the study.

Currently, the only recommended screening test for lung cancer is low-dose CT. But not everyone has easy access to screening facilities, said the other co-lead author Edward Tan, PhD, a former MIT postdoc and currently a scientist at the biotech company Prime Medicine, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“Our focus is to provide an alternative for the early detection of lung cancer that does not rely on resource-intensive infrastructure,” said Dr. Tan. “Most developing countries don’t have such resources” — and residents in some parts of the United States don’t have easy access, either, he said.
 

How It Works

The sensors are polymer nanoparticles coated in DNA barcodes, short DNA sequences that are unique and easy to identify. The researchers engineered the particles to be targeted by protease enzymes linked to stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Upon contact, the proteases cleave off the barcodes, which make their way into the bloodstream and are excreted in urine. A test strip can detect them, revealing results about 20 minutes from the time it’s dipped.

The researchers tested this system in mice genetically engineered to develop human-like lung tumors. Using aerosol nebulizers, they delivered 20 sensors to mice with the equivalent of stage I or II cancer. Using a machine learning algorithm, they identified the four most accurate sensors. With 100% specificity, those four sensors exhibited sensitivity of 84.6%.

“One advantage of using inhalation is that it’s noninvasive, and another advantage is that it distributes across the lung quite homogeneously,” said Dr. Tan. The time from inhalation to detection is also relatively fast — in mice, the whole process took about 2 hours, and Dr. Zhong speculated that it would not be much longer in humans.
 

Other Applications and Challenges

An injectable version of this technology, also developed at MIT, has already been tested in a phase 1 clinical trial for diagnosing liver cancer and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The injection also works in tandem with a urine test, the researchers showed in 2021. According to Tan, his research group (led by  Sangeeta Bhatia, MD, PhD) was the first to describe this type of technology to screen for diseases.

The lab is also working toward using inhalable sensors to distinguish between viral, bacterial, and fungal pneumonia. And the technology could also be used to diagnose other lung conditions like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Tan said.

The tech is certainly “innovative,” remarked Gaetano Rocco, MD, a thoracic surgeon and lung cancer researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, who was not involved in the study.

Still, challenges may arise when applying it to people. Many factors are involved in regulating fluid volume, potentially interfering with the ability to detect the compounds in the urine, Rocco said. Diet, hydration, drug interference, renal function, and some chronic diseases could all limit effectiveness.

Another challenge: Human cancer can be more heterogeneous (containing different kinds of cancer cells), so four sensors may not be enough, Zhong said. He and colleagues are beginning to analyze human biopsy samples to see whether the same sensors that worked in mice would also work in humans. If all goes well, they hope to do studies on humans or nonhuman primates.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Radiation oncologists from the largest professional societies have come together to lobby for Medicare payment reform.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services. 

Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.

Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle. 

The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.

To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered. 

ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Radiation oncologists from the largest professional societies have come together to lobby for Medicare payment reform.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services. 

Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.

Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle. 

The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.

To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered. 

ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Radiation oncologists from the largest professional societies have come together to lobby for Medicare payment reform.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services. 

Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.

Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle. 

The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.

To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered. 

ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

After lung cancer screening (LCS), imaging, and invasive procedures were performed 31.9% and 2.8% of the time, respectively. Complications during invasive procedures occurred in 30.6% of cases. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 9266 patients aged 55-80 years who completed at least one LCS with low-dose CT (LDCT) between 2014 and 2018.
• This study used data from the PROSPR Lung Consortium.
• Results were compared with findings from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a large study of smokers published in 2011.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 2956 patients (31.9%) underwent follow-up imaging, including CT, LDCT, MRI, or PET; 180 (0.02%) had invasive procedures, including needle biopsy, bronchoscopy, mediastinoscopy or mediastinotomy, or thoracoscopy.
• Within 30 days after an invasive diagnostic procedure, 55 of 180 patients (30.6%) experienced complications; 20.6% were major, 8.3% were intermediate, and 1.7% were minor.
• Complication rates after invasive procedures were higher in PROSPR than the NLST (30.6% vs 17.7%).
• Compared with all patients, those with an abnormal LCS were slightly older, more likely to currently smoke, reported more packs of cigarettes smoked daily, and had more comorbid conditions.
• In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual LCS for certain people who smoke, on the basis of findings from the NLST.

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed higher rates of both invasive procedures and complications than those observed in NLST, highlighting the need for practice-based strategies to assess variations in the quality of care and to prioritize LCS among those patients most likely to receive a net benefit from screening in relation to potential complications and other harms,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

Katharine A. Rendle, PhD, MSW, MPH, with Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, is the study’s corresponding author. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was retrospective, and data were analyzed using procedural coding. In addition, the NLST based abnormal findings on different criteria from those used in clinical practice (Lung-RADS), making direct comparison of patients difficult. Patients in PROSPR were older, more likely to be currently smoking, and had higher rates of comorbid conditions compared with patients in the NLST. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

TOPLINE:

After lung cancer screening (LCS), imaging, and invasive procedures were performed 31.9% and 2.8% of the time, respectively. Complications during invasive procedures occurred in 30.6% of cases. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 9266 patients aged 55-80 years who completed at least one LCS with low-dose CT (LDCT) between 2014 and 2018.
• This study used data from the PROSPR Lung Consortium.
• Results were compared with findings from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a large study of smokers published in 2011.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 2956 patients (31.9%) underwent follow-up imaging, including CT, LDCT, MRI, or PET; 180 (0.02%) had invasive procedures, including needle biopsy, bronchoscopy, mediastinoscopy or mediastinotomy, or thoracoscopy.
• Within 30 days after an invasive diagnostic procedure, 55 of 180 patients (30.6%) experienced complications; 20.6% were major, 8.3% were intermediate, and 1.7% were minor.
• Complication rates after invasive procedures were higher in PROSPR than the NLST (30.6% vs 17.7%).
• Compared with all patients, those with an abnormal LCS were slightly older, more likely to currently smoke, reported more packs of cigarettes smoked daily, and had more comorbid conditions.
• In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual LCS for certain people who smoke, on the basis of findings from the NLST.

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed higher rates of both invasive procedures and complications than those observed in NLST, highlighting the need for practice-based strategies to assess variations in the quality of care and to prioritize LCS among those patients most likely to receive a net benefit from screening in relation to potential complications and other harms,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

Katharine A. Rendle, PhD, MSW, MPH, with Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, is the study’s corresponding author. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was retrospective, and data were analyzed using procedural coding. In addition, the NLST based abnormal findings on different criteria from those used in clinical practice (Lung-RADS), making direct comparison of patients difficult. Patients in PROSPR were older, more likely to be currently smoking, and had higher rates of comorbid conditions compared with patients in the NLST. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

TOPLINE:

After lung cancer screening (LCS), imaging, and invasive procedures were performed 31.9% and 2.8% of the time, respectively. Complications during invasive procedures occurred in 30.6% of cases. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 9266 patients aged 55-80 years who completed at least one LCS with low-dose CT (LDCT) between 2014 and 2018.
• This study used data from the PROSPR Lung Consortium.
• Results were compared with findings from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a large study of smokers published in 2011.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 2956 patients (31.9%) underwent follow-up imaging, including CT, LDCT, MRI, or PET; 180 (0.02%) had invasive procedures, including needle biopsy, bronchoscopy, mediastinoscopy or mediastinotomy, or thoracoscopy.
• Within 30 days after an invasive diagnostic procedure, 55 of 180 patients (30.6%) experienced complications; 20.6% were major, 8.3% were intermediate, and 1.7% were minor.
• Complication rates after invasive procedures were higher in PROSPR than the NLST (30.6% vs 17.7%).
• Compared with all patients, those with an abnormal LCS were slightly older, more likely to currently smoke, reported more packs of cigarettes smoked daily, and had more comorbid conditions.
• In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual LCS for certain people who smoke, on the basis of findings from the NLST.

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed higher rates of both invasive procedures and complications than those observed in NLST, highlighting the need for practice-based strategies to assess variations in the quality of care and to prioritize LCS among those patients most likely to receive a net benefit from screening in relation to potential complications and other harms,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

Katharine A. Rendle, PhD, MSW, MPH, with Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, is the study’s corresponding author. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was retrospective, and data were analyzed using procedural coding. In addition, the NLST based abnormal findings on different criteria from those used in clinical practice (Lung-RADS), making direct comparison of patients difficult. Patients in PROSPR were older, more likely to be currently smoking, and had higher rates of comorbid conditions compared with patients in the NLST. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

For smokers, deaths with a cardiovascular or cancer-related cause, or ones that can be attributed to a respiratory disease such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, are significantly more common than for nonsmokers. It is widely recognized that stopping smoking leads to a reduction in mortality risk. To make reliable statements on the timeline of this reduction, researchers analyzed interview data and death rates from 438,015 adult US citizens from 1997 to the end of 2019.

The analyses show that it takes 30 years for the mortality risk of ex-smokers to resemble that of people who never regularly smoked. Blake Thomson, PhD, and Fahrad Islami, MD, PhD, both members of the Department of Surveillance and Health Equity Science of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, Georgia, published their results as a research letter in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

After Smoking Cessation

Overall, 11,860 cardiovascular, 10,935 cancer-related, and 2,060 respiratory-related deaths were considered from over 5 million patient years. Taken from these figures, the mortality risks of continuous smokers were 2.3 times (cardiovascular), 3.4 times (cancer-related), and 13.3 times (respiratory-related) higher than those of continuous nonsmokers.

Within 10 years of stopping smoking, the following occurred:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.47 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 36% compared with smokers).
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 2.13 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 47% compared with smokers).
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 6.35 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 43% compared with smokers).

In the second decade after stopping smoking, the risk dropped even further. The researchers observed the following trends:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.26 times.
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 1.59 times.
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 3.63 times — each time compared with nonsmokers.

During the third decade after stopping smoking, the risk continued to decrease. The trends were as follows:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.07 times.
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 1.34 times.
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 2.34 times, compared with nonsmokers.

30 Years Later

Only after more than 30 years of not smoking was the cardiovascular-related mortality risk 0.96 and, therefore, no longer significant. Compared with nonsmokers, the cancer-related mortality risk was 1.16, and the respiratory-related mortality risk was 1.31.

Therefore, former smokers can reduce their cardiovascular mortality risk by 100%, the cancer-related by 93%, and the respiratory-related mortality risk by 97%.

The result reinforces earlier analyses on the reduction in mortality risks by stopping smoking, with fewer participants. Smokers, therefore, benefit more the longer that they can refrain from using tobacco. “The earlier in life that smoking is given up, the better,” the authors wrote. But even in the first 10 years, the mortality risks examined decreased by a statistically significant 36% (cardiovascular) to 47% (cancer-related).
 

An Underestimation?

One disadvantage of the study is that the participants’ data were collected using personal questionnaires. For this reason, participants may have reported their tobacco consumption as being lower than it was, particularly because these questionnaires are often answered in hindsight, the authors pointed out.

In addition, some of the participants who reported stopping smoking completely may have only reduced their consumption. However, both circumstances would cause the results of the analysis to be even clearer, compared with reality, and therefore better.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For smokers, deaths with a cardiovascular or cancer-related cause, or ones that can be attributed to a respiratory disease such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, are significantly more common than for nonsmokers. It is widely recognized that stopping smoking leads to a reduction in mortality risk. To make reliable statements on the timeline of this reduction, researchers analyzed interview data and death rates from 438,015 adult US citizens from 1997 to the end of 2019.

The analyses show that it takes 30 years for the mortality risk of ex-smokers to resemble that of people who never regularly smoked. Blake Thomson, PhD, and Fahrad Islami, MD, PhD, both members of the Department of Surveillance and Health Equity Science of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, Georgia, published their results as a research letter in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

After Smoking Cessation

Overall, 11,860 cardiovascular, 10,935 cancer-related, and 2,060 respiratory-related deaths were considered from over 5 million patient years. Taken from these figures, the mortality risks of continuous smokers were 2.3 times (cardiovascular), 3.4 times (cancer-related), and 13.3 times (respiratory-related) higher than those of continuous nonsmokers.

Within 10 years of stopping smoking, the following occurred:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.47 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 36% compared with smokers).
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 2.13 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 47% compared with smokers).
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 6.35 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 43% compared with smokers).

In the second decade after stopping smoking, the risk dropped even further. The researchers observed the following trends:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.26 times.
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 1.59 times.
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 3.63 times — each time compared with nonsmokers.

During the third decade after stopping smoking, the risk continued to decrease. The trends were as follows:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.07 times.
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 1.34 times.
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 2.34 times, compared with nonsmokers.

30 Years Later

Only after more than 30 years of not smoking was the cardiovascular-related mortality risk 0.96 and, therefore, no longer significant. Compared with nonsmokers, the cancer-related mortality risk was 1.16, and the respiratory-related mortality risk was 1.31.

Therefore, former smokers can reduce their cardiovascular mortality risk by 100%, the cancer-related by 93%, and the respiratory-related mortality risk by 97%.

The result reinforces earlier analyses on the reduction in mortality risks by stopping smoking, with fewer participants. Smokers, therefore, benefit more the longer that they can refrain from using tobacco. “The earlier in life that smoking is given up, the better,” the authors wrote. But even in the first 10 years, the mortality risks examined decreased by a statistically significant 36% (cardiovascular) to 47% (cancer-related).
 

An Underestimation?

One disadvantage of the study is that the participants’ data were collected using personal questionnaires. For this reason, participants may have reported their tobacco consumption as being lower than it was, particularly because these questionnaires are often answered in hindsight, the authors pointed out.

In addition, some of the participants who reported stopping smoking completely may have only reduced their consumption. However, both circumstances would cause the results of the analysis to be even clearer, compared with reality, and therefore better.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For smokers, deaths with a cardiovascular or cancer-related cause, or ones that can be attributed to a respiratory disease such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, are significantly more common than for nonsmokers. It is widely recognized that stopping smoking leads to a reduction in mortality risk. To make reliable statements on the timeline of this reduction, researchers analyzed interview data and death rates from 438,015 adult US citizens from 1997 to the end of 2019.

The analyses show that it takes 30 years for the mortality risk of ex-smokers to resemble that of people who never regularly smoked. Blake Thomson, PhD, and Fahrad Islami, MD, PhD, both members of the Department of Surveillance and Health Equity Science of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, Georgia, published their results as a research letter in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

After Smoking Cessation

Overall, 11,860 cardiovascular, 10,935 cancer-related, and 2,060 respiratory-related deaths were considered from over 5 million patient years. Taken from these figures, the mortality risks of continuous smokers were 2.3 times (cardiovascular), 3.4 times (cancer-related), and 13.3 times (respiratory-related) higher than those of continuous nonsmokers.

Within 10 years of stopping smoking, the following occurred:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.47 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 36% compared with smokers).
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 2.13 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 47% compared with smokers).
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 6.35 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 43% compared with smokers).

In the second decade after stopping smoking, the risk dropped even further. The researchers observed the following trends:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.26 times.
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 1.59 times.
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 3.63 times — each time compared with nonsmokers.

During the third decade after stopping smoking, the risk continued to decrease. The trends were as follows:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.07 times.
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 1.34 times.
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 2.34 times, compared with nonsmokers.

30 Years Later

Only after more than 30 years of not smoking was the cardiovascular-related mortality risk 0.96 and, therefore, no longer significant. Compared with nonsmokers, the cancer-related mortality risk was 1.16, and the respiratory-related mortality risk was 1.31.

Therefore, former smokers can reduce their cardiovascular mortality risk by 100%, the cancer-related by 93%, and the respiratory-related mortality risk by 97%.

The result reinforces earlier analyses on the reduction in mortality risks by stopping smoking, with fewer participants. Smokers, therefore, benefit more the longer that they can refrain from using tobacco. “The earlier in life that smoking is given up, the better,” the authors wrote. But even in the first 10 years, the mortality risks examined decreased by a statistically significant 36% (cardiovascular) to 47% (cancer-related).
 

An Underestimation?

One disadvantage of the study is that the participants’ data were collected using personal questionnaires. For this reason, participants may have reported their tobacco consumption as being lower than it was, particularly because these questionnaires are often answered in hindsight, the authors pointed out.

In addition, some of the participants who reported stopping smoking completely may have only reduced their consumption. However, both circumstances would cause the results of the analysis to be even clearer, compared with reality, and therefore better.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early diagnosis improves lung cancer survival. Yet in the general population, only 17% of cases are diagnosed at an early stage. Among veterans, that rises to more than 30%.

Despite the impact lung cancer screening (LCS) has on improving survival, screening rates in the US remain low. In November 2017, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued a memorandum providing recommendations for LCS with low-dose computer tomography (CT) scans at VA facilities. The memorandum was updated July 2022. While the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) called the memoranda “guidelines,” it also stipulated to VA facilities that they may “only” perform LCS when they meet all 10 mandatory elements:  

• Standardized, evidence-based criteria for eligibility, frequency, and duration of LCS
• Processes to facilitate the identification of patients who meet VA LCS eligibility criteria
• Patient education materials and shared decision making for patients regarding participation in an LCS program
• Clinical LCS coordinator(s) to coordinate the care and management of patients in the program
• Access to an effective, evidence-based smoking cessation program
• An LCS program oversight board responsible for oversight of the program’s conduct and management
• Access to a multidisciplinary lung nodule management board with clinical expertise in lung nodule management and diagnostic pathways
• Access to a tumor board with expertise in lung cancer treatment
• Optimized radiology CT protocols and standardized procedure names, along with standardized reporting methodology/codes and lung nodule management guidelines
• A patient management tool/registry to rigorously track and manage patients to ensure high levels of adherence to LCS management guidelines

However, in a recent investigation, the OIG found that facility staff involved in LCS reported that VA LCS guideline requirements “presented barriers to broader adoption of LCS” and did not ensure consistent implementation.

One problem, the OIG found, was the limited use of LCS at VA facilities. Just over half of the surveyed VA facilities reported having an established LCS program consistent with VA guidelines for LCS in 2022. There were also barriers to implementing LCS program requirements, such as the absence of an LCS coordinator, the lack of adequate staffing, the absence of a patient registry, and the lack of a multidisciplinary board.

Another problem was the inconsistent implementation of screening. Facilities with LCS programs reported varied use of program elements, including inconsistent use of an LCS coordinator to manage patients in the program.

The OIG also found that regardless of whether facilities had established an adherent LCS program, they varied in how they identified screening-eligible patients. The VA National Center for LCS recommends the use of clinical reminders as the preferred method to identify patients—but it is not required and not all facilities use it. The clinical reminder, the OIG report points out, can capture accurate smoking history information within the electronic health record to support identifying patients meeting LCS criteria.

The facilities also varied in their methods for interpreting low-dose CT scans. Ten sites, for instance, reported not using an established system for the classification of the results. The OIG notes that this could lead to inaccurate interpretation of the low-dose CT scan results and increase the risk for patient harm and health care costs.

The OIG made the following 3 recommendations to the Under Secretary for Health: (1) Review the operational memorandum for lung cancer screening implementation and assess whether LCS rates could be enhanced by allowing a facility to conduct LCS while developing all mandated elements; (2) Review the operational memorandum for LCS implementation and assess whether LCS rates could be enhanced by reevaluating, prioritizing, and clarifying the mandated elements; and (3) Consider mandating eligible patients be offered LCS consistent with other required cancer screenings in the VA.

The Under Secretary for Health concurred with the recommendations and provided an acceptable action plan. The OIG will follow up on the planned actions until they are completed.

Early diagnosis improves lung cancer survival. Yet in the general population, only 17% of cases are diagnosed at an early stage. Among veterans, that rises to more than 30%.

Despite the impact lung cancer screening (LCS) has on improving survival, screening rates in the US remain low. In November 2017, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued a memorandum providing recommendations for LCS with low-dose computer tomography (CT) scans at VA facilities. The memorandum was updated July 2022. While the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) called the memoranda “guidelines,” it also stipulated to VA facilities that they may “only” perform LCS when they meet all 10 mandatory elements:  

• Standardized, evidence-based criteria for eligibility, frequency, and duration of LCS
• Processes to facilitate the identification of patients who meet VA LCS eligibility criteria
• Patient education materials and shared decision making for patients regarding participation in an LCS program
• Clinical LCS coordinator(s) to coordinate the care and management of patients in the program
• Access to an effective, evidence-based smoking cessation program
• An LCS program oversight board responsible for oversight of the program’s conduct and management
• Access to a multidisciplinary lung nodule management board with clinical expertise in lung nodule management and diagnostic pathways
• Access to a tumor board with expertise in lung cancer treatment
• Optimized radiology CT protocols and standardized procedure names, along with standardized reporting methodology/codes and lung nodule management guidelines
• A patient management tool/registry to rigorously track and manage patients to ensure high levels of adherence to LCS management guidelines

However, in a recent investigation, the OIG found that facility staff involved in LCS reported that VA LCS guideline requirements “presented barriers to broader adoption of LCS” and did not ensure consistent implementation.

One problem, the OIG found, was the limited use of LCS at VA facilities. Just over half of the surveyed VA facilities reported having an established LCS program consistent with VA guidelines for LCS in 2022. There were also barriers to implementing LCS program requirements, such as the absence of an LCS coordinator, the lack of adequate staffing, the absence of a patient registry, and the lack of a multidisciplinary board.

Another problem was the inconsistent implementation of screening. Facilities with LCS programs reported varied use of program elements, including inconsistent use of an LCS coordinator to manage patients in the program.

The OIG also found that regardless of whether facilities had established an adherent LCS program, they varied in how they identified screening-eligible patients. The VA National Center for LCS recommends the use of clinical reminders as the preferred method to identify patients—but it is not required and not all facilities use it. The clinical reminder, the OIG report points out, can capture accurate smoking history information within the electronic health record to support identifying patients meeting LCS criteria.

The facilities also varied in their methods for interpreting low-dose CT scans. Ten sites, for instance, reported not using an established system for the classification of the results. The OIG notes that this could lead to inaccurate interpretation of the low-dose CT scan results and increase the risk for patient harm and health care costs.

The OIG made the following 3 recommendations to the Under Secretary for Health: (1) Review the operational memorandum for lung cancer screening implementation and assess whether LCS rates could be enhanced by allowing a facility to conduct LCS while developing all mandated elements; (2) Review the operational memorandum for LCS implementation and assess whether LCS rates could be enhanced by reevaluating, prioritizing, and clarifying the mandated elements; and (3) Consider mandating eligible patients be offered LCS consistent with other required cancer screenings in the VA.

The Under Secretary for Health concurred with the recommendations and provided an acceptable action plan. The OIG will follow up on the planned actions until they are completed.

Early diagnosis improves lung cancer survival. Yet in the general population, only 17% of cases are diagnosed at an early stage. Among veterans, that rises to more than 30%.

Despite the impact lung cancer screening (LCS) has on improving survival, screening rates in the US remain low. In November 2017, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued a memorandum providing recommendations for LCS with low-dose computer tomography (CT) scans at VA facilities. The memorandum was updated July 2022. While the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) called the memoranda “guidelines,” it also stipulated to VA facilities that they may “only” perform LCS when they meet all 10 mandatory elements:  

• Standardized, evidence-based criteria for eligibility, frequency, and duration of LCS
• Processes to facilitate the identification of patients who meet VA LCS eligibility criteria
• Patient education materials and shared decision making for patients regarding participation in an LCS program
• Clinical LCS coordinator(s) to coordinate the care and management of patients in the program
• Access to an effective, evidence-based smoking cessation program
• An LCS program oversight board responsible for oversight of the program’s conduct and management
• Access to a multidisciplinary lung nodule management board with clinical expertise in lung nodule management and diagnostic pathways
• Access to a tumor board with expertise in lung cancer treatment
• Optimized radiology CT protocols and standardized procedure names, along with standardized reporting methodology/codes and lung nodule management guidelines
• A patient management tool/registry to rigorously track and manage patients to ensure high levels of adherence to LCS management guidelines

However, in a recent investigation, the OIG found that facility staff involved in LCS reported that VA LCS guideline requirements “presented barriers to broader adoption of LCS” and did not ensure consistent implementation.

One problem, the OIG found, was the limited use of LCS at VA facilities. Just over half of the surveyed VA facilities reported having an established LCS program consistent with VA guidelines for LCS in 2022. There were also barriers to implementing LCS program requirements, such as the absence of an LCS coordinator, the lack of adequate staffing, the absence of a patient registry, and the lack of a multidisciplinary board.

Another problem was the inconsistent implementation of screening. Facilities with LCS programs reported varied use of program elements, including inconsistent use of an LCS coordinator to manage patients in the program.

The OIG also found that regardless of whether facilities had established an adherent LCS program, they varied in how they identified screening-eligible patients. The VA National Center for LCS recommends the use of clinical reminders as the preferred method to identify patients—but it is not required and not all facilities use it. The clinical reminder, the OIG report points out, can capture accurate smoking history information within the electronic health record to support identifying patients meeting LCS criteria.

The facilities also varied in their methods for interpreting low-dose CT scans. Ten sites, for instance, reported not using an established system for the classification of the results. The OIG notes that this could lead to inaccurate interpretation of the low-dose CT scan results and increase the risk for patient harm and health care costs.

The OIG made the following 3 recommendations to the Under Secretary for Health: (1) Review the operational memorandum for lung cancer screening implementation and assess whether LCS rates could be enhanced by allowing a facility to conduct LCS while developing all mandated elements; (2) Review the operational memorandum for LCS implementation and assess whether LCS rates could be enhanced by reevaluating, prioritizing, and clarifying the mandated elements; and (3) Consider mandating eligible patients be offered LCS consistent with other required cancer screenings in the VA.

The Under Secretary for Health concurred with the recommendations and provided an acceptable action plan. The OIG will follow up on the planned actions until they are completed.

Thoracic Oncology Network

Ultrasound & Chest Imaging Section

Thoracic ultrasound (TUS) is standard of care for the detection of pleural effusion and guidance of pleural procedures. Recent advancements have further expanded the utility of TUS. TUS has better diagnostic performance than CT scan or chest radiograph for predicting complicated parapneumonic effusion (Svigals PZ, et al. Thorax. 2017;72[1]:94-5). This is likely because of better visualization of septation, but there are still limitations. In a study of 300 pleural ultrasounds, TUS was found to be inadequately reliable in the diagnosis of transudative pleural effusion as 56% of anechoic effusions were exudative, but complex appearing pleural effusion on TUS was found to have high predictive value for the diagnosis of exudative pleural effusion (Shkolnik B, et al. Chest. 2020;158[2]:692-7).

TUS may diagnose nonexpendable lung prior to drainage in malignant pleural effusions. Using M-mode to assess lung motion and speckled tracking for the assessment of lung stain, blunted cardio-phasic response of the lung was highly specific for the diagnosis of nonexpandable lung (Salamonsen MR, et al. Chest. 2014;146[5]:1286-93). TUS can also be used to assess the success of pleurodesis as measured by the adherence score (abolishment of pleural sliding). TUS guided pleurodesis approach was shown to decrease the hospital length of stay in patients undergoing pleurodesis for malignant pleural effusion (Psallidas I, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2022;10[2]:139-48). Point-of-care TUS is evolving, and adapted use focusing on patient-centered outcomes will further enhance the utility of this indispensable tool.

Amit Chopra, MD, FCCP

Nicholas Villalobos, MD

Thoracic Oncology Network

Ultrasound & Chest Imaging Section

Thoracic ultrasound (TUS) is standard of care for the detection of pleural effusion and guidance of pleural procedures. Recent advancements have further expanded the utility of TUS. TUS has better diagnostic performance than CT scan or chest radiograph for predicting complicated parapneumonic effusion (Svigals PZ, et al. Thorax. 2017;72[1]:94-5). This is likely because of better visualization of septation, but there are still limitations. In a study of 300 pleural ultrasounds, TUS was found to be inadequately reliable in the diagnosis of transudative pleural effusion as 56% of anechoic effusions were exudative, but complex appearing pleural effusion on TUS was found to have high predictive value for the diagnosis of exudative pleural effusion (Shkolnik B, et al. Chest. 2020;158[2]:692-7).

TUS may diagnose nonexpendable lung prior to drainage in malignant pleural effusions. Using M-mode to assess lung motion and speckled tracking for the assessment of lung stain, blunted cardio-phasic response of the lung was highly specific for the diagnosis of nonexpandable lung (Salamonsen MR, et al. Chest. 2014;146[5]:1286-93). TUS can also be used to assess the success of pleurodesis as measured by the adherence score (abolishment of pleural sliding). TUS guided pleurodesis approach was shown to decrease the hospital length of stay in patients undergoing pleurodesis for malignant pleural effusion (Psallidas I, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2022;10[2]:139-48). Point-of-care TUS is evolving, and adapted use focusing on patient-centered outcomes will further enhance the utility of this indispensable tool.

Amit Chopra, MD, FCCP

Nicholas Villalobos, MD

Thoracic Oncology Network

Ultrasound & Chest Imaging Section

Thoracic ultrasound (TUS) is standard of care for the detection of pleural effusion and guidance of pleural procedures. Recent advancements have further expanded the utility of TUS. TUS has better diagnostic performance than CT scan or chest radiograph for predicting complicated parapneumonic effusion (Svigals PZ, et al. Thorax. 2017;72[1]:94-5). This is likely because of better visualization of septation, but there are still limitations. In a study of 300 pleural ultrasounds, TUS was found to be inadequately reliable in the diagnosis of transudative pleural effusion as 56% of anechoic effusions were exudative, but complex appearing pleural effusion on TUS was found to have high predictive value for the diagnosis of exudative pleural effusion (Shkolnik B, et al. Chest. 2020;158[2]:692-7).

TUS may diagnose nonexpendable lung prior to drainage in malignant pleural effusions. Using M-mode to assess lung motion and speckled tracking for the assessment of lung stain, blunted cardio-phasic response of the lung was highly specific for the diagnosis of nonexpandable lung (Salamonsen MR, et al. Chest. 2014;146[5]:1286-93). TUS can also be used to assess the success of pleurodesis as measured by the adherence score (abolishment of pleural sliding). TUS guided pleurodesis approach was shown to decrease the hospital length of stay in patients undergoing pleurodesis for malignant pleural effusion (Psallidas I, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2022;10[2]:139-48). Point-of-care TUS is evolving, and adapted use focusing on patient-centered outcomes will further enhance the utility of this indispensable tool.

Amit Chopra, MD, FCCP

Nicholas Villalobos, MD