Virtual Library
Start Your Search
Jin Mo Goo
Moderator of
-
+
OA 15 - Diagnostic Radiology, Staging and Screening for Lung Cancer II (ID 684)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Oral
- Track: Radiology/Staging/Screening
- Presentations: 9
- Moderators:Y. Satoh, Jin Mo Goo
- Coordinates: 10/18/2017, 14:30 - 16:15, Room 303 + 304
-
+
OA 15.01 - Lung Cancer Screening: Participant Selection by Risk Model – the Pan-Canadian Study (ID 8466)
14:30 - 14:40 | Presenting Author(s): Stephen Lam | Author(s): M. Tammemägi, H.C. Schmidt, S. Martel, A. McWilliams, John R Goffin, M. Johnston, Glenwood Goss, A. Tremblay, R. Bhatia, G. Liu, K. Soghrati, Kazuhiro Yasufuku, D.M. Hwang, F. Laberge, M. Gingras, S. Pasian, C. Couture, J.R. Mayo, P.V. Nasute Fauerbach, S. Atkar-Khattra, S.J. Peacock, S. Cressman, D. Ionescu, J.C. English, R.J. Finley, J. Yee, S. Puksa, L. Stewart, S. Tsai, E. Haider, C. Boylan, J. Cutz, D. Manos, Z. Xu, G. Nicholas, J.M. Seely, K. Amjadi, H.S. Sekhon, P. Burrowes, P. Maceachern, S. Urbanski, D. Sin, W.C. Tan, Natasha B Leighl, Frances A Shepherd, William Kenneth Evans, Ming Sound Tsao
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Retrospective studies indicate that selecting individuals for low dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening based on a highly predictive risk model is superior to applying National Lung Screening Trial (NLST)-like criteria, which use only categorized age, pack-year and smoking quit-time information. The Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study (PanCan Study) was designed to prospectively evaluate whether individuals at high risk for lung cancer could be identified for screening using a risk prediction model. This paper describes the study design and results.
Method:
2537 individuals were recruited through 8 centers across Canada based on a ≥2% of lung cancer risk estimated by the PanCan model, a precursor to the validated PLCOm2012 model. Individuals were screened at baseline and 1 and 4 years post-baseline.
Result:
At a median 5.5 years of follow-up, 164 individuals (6.5%) were diagnosed with 172 lung cancers. This was a significantly greater percentage of persons diagnosed with lung cancers than was observed in the NLST(4.0%)(p<0·001). Compared to 57% observed in the NLST, 77% of lung cancers in the PanCan Study were early stage (I or II) (p<0.001) and to 25% in a comparable population, age 50-75 during 2007-2009 in Ontario, Canada’s largest province, (p<0·001).
Conclusion:
Enrolling high-risk individuals into a LDCT screening study or program using a highly predictive risk model, is efficient in identifying individuals who will be diagnosed with lung cancer and is compatible with a strong stage shift – identifying a high proportion at early, potentially curable stage. Funding This study was funded by the Terry Fox Research Institute and Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00751660
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
OA 15.02 - Benefits, Harms, and Economic Efficiency of Low-Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening Strategies in a Population-Based Setting (ID 7999)
14:40 - 14:50 | Presenting Author(s): Alexander Kuhlmann | Author(s): M. Treskova, I. Aumann, H. Golpon, J. Vogel-Claussen, T. Welte, J.-. Graf Von Der Schulenburg
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
In lung cancer screening, a nodule management protocol describes nodule assessment and thresholds for nodule size and growth rate to identify patients who require immediate diagnostic evaluation or additional imaging exams. The NELSON and NLST clinical trials used different selection criteria and nodule management protocols. Several modelling studies have reported variations in screening outcomes and cost-effectiveness across selection criteria and screening intervals; however, the effect of variations in the nodule management protocol remains uncertain. This study evaluated the effects of the eligibility criteria and nodule management protocols on the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of lung screening scenarios in a population-based setting in Germany.
Method:
We developed a modular microsimulation model: a biological module simulated individual histories of lung cancer development from carcinogenesis onset to death; a screening module simulated patient selection, screening-detection, nodule management protocols, diagnostic evaluation and screening outcomes. Benefits included mortality reduction, life years gained, averted lung cancer deaths. Harms were costs, false-positives, overdiagnosis. Comparator was no screening. Evaluated 57 screening scenarios included variations in selection criteria and thresholds for nodule size and growth rate.
Result:
Five years of annual screening resulted in an 11.3–12.6% lung cancer mortality reduction in the screened population. The efficient scenario included volumetric assessment, a threshold for a volume of 300 mm[3], and a threshold for a volume doubling time of 400 days. Assessment of volume doubling time is essential for reducing overdiagnosis and false-positives. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the efficient scenarios were 19,389–23,804 Euro per life years gained and 178,673–285,630 Euro per averted lung cancer death.
Conclusion:
Lung cancer screening can be cost-effective in Germany. Along with the eligibility criteria, the nodule management protocol influences screening performance and cost-effectiveness. Definition of the thresholds for nodule size and nodule growth in the nodule management protocol should be considered in detail when defining optimal screening strategies.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
OA 15.03 - Gene-Based Risk Stratification of NLST-ACRIN Screening Participants Identifies The "Sweet Spot" of Screening (N=10,054) (ID 8625)
14:50 - 15:00 | Presenting Author(s): Robert P Young | Author(s): Raewyn J Hopkins, F. Duan, E. Greco, C. Chiles, D.R. Aberle, G.D. Gamble
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Screening of high risk smokers with computed tomography (CT) aims to identify early stage lung cancers in screening participants amenable to curative surgery. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated a 20% reduction in lung cancer specific mortality in the CT arm compared to chest x-ray (control) arm. European screening trial results to date have failed to show any evidence of a reduction in lung cancer mortality. Reduction in lung cancer mortality comes from the combined effects of successful surgical removal of life-threatening early stage lung cancers and post-operative survival. In screening participants of the NLST, who are older chronic smokers, there exists a balance between mortality from lung cancer and mortality from non-lung cancer related causes.
Method:
This study aimed to validate a gene-based risk tool for dying of lung cancer and examine the outcomes from screening according to tertiles of risk. It also aimed to establish the utility of adding SNP-based data to risk prediction and efficacy in identifying which screening participants get the best outcomes from screening. Using prospective data from the NLST-ACRIN cohort (N=10,054), we examined the utility of combining risk genotypes with clinical risk variables in our risk model for dying of lung cancer. We then stratified screening participants into risk tertiles according to our risk model and compared the outcomes from CT versus CXR screening
Result:
The addition of risk genotypes (combined genetic risk score) to our clinical risk model for dying of lung cancer was significantly improved (AUC increased from 0.61 to 0.66, P=0.014). We show that screening participants in the middle risk tertile achieves a lung cancer specific mortality reduction of 55% and all-cause mortality reduction of 21%. In this group the number of lung cancers averted is maximised (12/1000 person screened) and number needed to screen to avert one lung cancer reduced to 84. We show that this is achieved through minimising pre-existing co-morbid disease and by maximising screen detected lung cancers amenable to CT detection and successful surgical intervention. We believe genetic data provides useful information on lung cancer biology.
Conclusion:
The “Sweet spot” of CT screening comes from identifying high risk smokers optimised according to co-existing premorbid disease (especially COPD), early stage lung cancers amenable to surgical cure and least likely to die of other complications of smoking. Gene-based risk testing appears superior to just clinical risk models alone in prioritising high risk smokers for screening.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
OA 15.04 - Community-Based Lung Cancer Screening, Targeting High-Risk Ever Smokers in Deprived Areas of Manchester: an NHS Implementation Project. (ID 7525)
15:00 - 15:10 | Presenting Author(s): Haval Balata | Author(s): P. Crosbie, M. Evison, L. Yarnell, A. Threlfall, P. Barber, J. Tonge, R. Booton
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Lung cancer (LC) is the commonest cause of cancer-related death in the world. Screening with low-dose computer tomography (LDCT) had been shown to reduce LC specific and all-cause mortality. Benefit is greatest in those at highest risk, such as current smokers from areas of high socio-economic deprivation, yet participation in these ‘hard-to-reach’ populations remains a challenge and must be improved if we are to succeed with screening. The aim of this NHS implementation project was to assess LC screening within the community in deprived areas.
Method:
Ever smokers, aged 55-74, registered at 14 participating general practitioner (GP) practices in deprived areas of Manchester were invited to attend and have a free ‘Lung Health Check’ (LHC) in a mobile unit located at their local shopping centres. Lung cancer risk score (PLCO~M2012~), respiratory symptoms and spirometry were assessed as part of the LHC with results communicated back to the GPs. Those at high risk of LC, i.e. 6-year lung cancer risk ≥1.51%, were offered immediate LDCT in a co-located mobile CT scanner. These were all reported by thoracic radiologists with an interest in pulmonary oncology. Specifically designed nodule algorithms were followed in the reporting.
Result:
The maximum available capacity of the project was filled within days of going live. 2,541 individuals attended for a LHC and consented to data analysis. The mean age was 64.1±5.5, 51.0% (n=1,296) were female, 35.1% (n=891) were current smokers and 74.5% (n=1,893) ranked in lowest deprivation quintile. Of these 56.2% (n=1,429) qualified for a LDCT scan (PLCO~M2012~ risk score ≥1.51%). 46 lung cancers were detected in 42 individuals, a prevalence of 3.0%, of which 80% (n=37/46) were early stage (I+II). A treatment with curative intent was offered to 89.1% (n=41/46) of screen detected cancers and the surgical resection rate was 65.2%, which is almost fourfold the UK national average (16.8%).
Conclusion:
Taking lung cancer screening into the community can identify and target those at most risk, using the PLCO~m2012~ model, resulting in a significant stage shift in screen detected lung cancers in deprived populations.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
OA 15.05 - Discussant - OA 15.01, OA 15.02, OA 15.03, OA 15.04 (ID 10835)
15:10 - 15:25 | Presenting Author(s): David F Yankelevitz
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract not provided
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
OA 15.06 - Management of Nonresolving New Solid Nodules after Initial Detection in Incidence Rounds of CT Lung Cancer Screening (ID 8922)
15:25 - 15:35 | Presenting Author(s): Joan E Walter | Author(s): M.A. Heuvelmans, R. Vliegenthart, P.M. Ooijen, Harry J De Koning, Matthijs Oudkerk
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening is recommended by US guidelines for high-risk individuals. New solid nodules are regularly found in incidence screening rounds and have a higher lung cancer probability at smaller size than do baseline nodules, leading to the proposal of lower size cutoffs at initial new solid nodule detection. However, currently there is no evidence concerning the risk-stratification of new solid nodules at first LDCT screening after initial detection.
Method:
In the ongoing, multicenter, randomized controlled Dutch-Belgian Lung Cancer Screening (NELSON) Trial, 7,295 participants underwent the second and 6,922 participants the third screening round. We included participants with solid non-calcified nodules, that were registered by the NELSON radiologists as new or smaller than 15mm[3] (study detection limit) at previous screens and received a follow-up or regular LDCT screening after initial detection; thereby excluding high-risk nodules according to the NELSON management protocol (nodules ≥500mm[3]). Nodule volume was generated semiautomatically. For assessment of the predictive performance, the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of nodule volume, volume doubling time (VDT), and VDT combined with a predefined 200mm[3] volume cutoff were evaluated with eventual lung cancer diagnosis as outcome.
Result:
Overall, 680 participants with 1,020 low and intermediate risk new solid nodules were included. A total of 562 (55%) new solid nodules were resolving, leaving 356 (52%) participants with a nonresolving new solid nodule of whom 25 (7%) were eventually diagnosed with lung cancer in such a nodule. At first follow-up or regular LDCT screening after initial new solid nodule detection, VDT, volume, and VDT combined with the predefined ≥200mm[3] volume cutoff had a high discriminative performance for lung cancer (VDT, AUC: 0.91; volume, AUC: 0.88; VDT and ≥200mm[3] combination, AUC: 0.94). A cutoff combination of ≤590 days VDT or ≥200mm[3] at first LDCT after initial new solid nodule detection, classifying a nodule positive when at least one criterion was fulfilled, provided 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] 84-100%) sensitivity and 84% (95%CI 80-87%) specificity for discriminating lung cancer, with positively classified nodules having a lung cancer probability of 27% (95%CI 19-37%).
Conclusion:
More than half of new solid nodules identified in LDCT lung cancer screening are resolving nodules. At first follow-up, a cutoff combination of ≤590 days VDT or ≥200mm[3] volume can be used for risk stratification.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
OA 15.07 - Value of Nodule Characteristics in Risk-Stratification of New Incident Nodules Detected in CT Lung Cancer Screening (ID 9067)
15:35 - 15:45 | Presenting Author(s): Joan E Walter | Author(s): M.A. Heuvelmans, R. Vliegenthart, P.M. Ooijen, Harry J De Koning, Matthijs Oudkerk
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
New solid nodules detected in low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening have a higher lung cancer probability at a smaller size than baseline nodules and lower size cutoff values for risk stratification at initial detection have been proposed. So far, it is unknown whether nodule characteristics, such as morphology or location, could improve risk stratification by size in new solid nodules.
Method:
This study forms part of the ongoing, randomized controlled Dutch-Belgian Lung Cancer Screening (NELSON) trial. This analysis included solid non-calcified nodules detected during the three incidence screening rounds and registered by the NELSON radiologists as new or previously below detection limit (15mm[3]). Nodule volume was generated semiautomatically. The predictive performance of nodule characteristics (location, distribution [peripheral, nonperipheral], shape [round, polygonal, irregular], margin [smooth, lobulated, spiculated, irregular], visibility <15mm[3] in retrospect) combined with previously established volume cutoffs (<30mm[3], low risk; 30-<200mm[3], intermediate risk; ≥200mm[3] high risk) was evaluated by multivariable logistic regression analysis with eventual lung cancer diagnosis as outcome. Discrimination of lung cancer based on volume, the final parsimonious model, and the model stratified into three risk groups (low, intermediate, high) was assessed through the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) and compared using DeLong's Method.
Result:
Overall, 1,280 new nodules were included with 73 (6%) being diagnosed as lung cancer eventually. Of the new nodules visible <15mm[3] in retrospect and now ≥30mm[3], 22% (6/27) were lung cancer. Discrimination based on volume cutoffs (AUC: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.84) and continuous volume (AUC: 0.82, 95%CI 0.77-0.87) was comparable (P=0.14). After adjustment for volume cutoffs, only location in the right upper lobe (odds ratio [OR] 2.0, 95%CI 1.2-3.4), nonperipheral distribution (OR 2.4, 95%CI 1.4-4.2), and visibility <15mm[3] in retrospect (OR 4.7, 95%CI 1.7-12.8) remained significant predictors. Discrimination based on the model (AUC: 0.85, 95%CI 0.81-0.89) was superior to the volume cutoffs alone (P=0.0002), but when stratified into three risk groups (AUC: 0.82, 95%CI 0.78-0.86) discrimination was comparable (P=0.2).
Conclusion:
At initial detection, nodule volume is the strongest predictor for lung cancer in new nodules. Nodule characteristics may further improve lung cancer prediction, but only have limited incremental discriminatory value additional to volume cutoffs in a three-category stratification approach.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
OA 15.08 - Thoroughness of Staging and the Outcomes of Surgical Resection Outcomes in Potentially Curable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) (ID 10059)
15:45 - 15:55 | Presenting Author(s): Matthew P Smeltzer | Author(s): Y. Lee, N.R. Faris, M.A. Ray, C. Fehnel, C. Houston-Harris, P. Ojeabulu, O. Akinbobola, L. Deese, E. Owen, B. Wolf, H.L. Wiggins, C. Mutrie, V. Sachdev, P. Levy, R.S. Signore, E.T. Robbins, Raymond U. Osarogiagbon
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Substantial variation exists in the processes of care for potentially curable NSCLC. We examined the impact of thoroughness of staging for patients undergoing NSCLC surgery in a large, heterogeneous population within a lung cancer endemic region of the US.
Method:
We evaluated all surgically resected patients in the Mid-South Quality of Surgical Resection (MS-QSR) cohort from 2009-2017. MS-QSR is a population-based cohort including all curative-intent NSCLC resections at 11 hospitals in the mid-south US. Patients were classified into 8 groups based on use (Yes/No) of the following staging modalities: PET/CT, pre-operative invasive staging, operative mediastinal nodal examination (MLE). We compared stage distribution, adjuvant therapy, and overall survival outcomes across groups using the chi-square test and adjusted Proportional Hazards Models.
Result:
The 2,370 patients had a median age of 67 years, were 53% male. The racial distribution was: 70% White, 25% Black, 5% Other. Clinical N-stage was similar between the 8 groups. We found statistically significant differences in pathologic stage distribution, adjuvant therapy usage, and overall survival across the 8 groups (Table 1). Patients who received PET/CT, invasive staging, and MLE (Group 1) had significantly higher pathologic N-stage distribution compared to the other groups due to substantial nodal upstaging. Group 1 had 76% eligibility and 31% use of adjuvant chemotherapy compared to 51% and 8% in the Group 8 (No PET/CT, No Invasive Staging, No MLE). Use and eligibility for adjuvant radiation therapy was also highest in Group 1. There was an overall difference in survival across the groups (p-value=0.0019) which remained significant after adjusting for age, sex, race, histology, and path stage (p-value=0.0013). After adjustment, Group 8 had a 14% increased hazard of death compared with Group 1. Figure 1
Conclusion:
A less thorough approach to staging may lead to less nodal upstaging and less eligibility for adjuvant therapy, which could have implications for long term survival.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
OA 15.09 - Discussant - OA 15.06, OA 15.07, OA 15.08 (ID 10836)
15:55 - 16:10 | Presenting Author(s): John Kirkpatrick Field
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract not provided
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
Author of
-
+
MTE 27 - CT Screening for Lung Cancer (Sign Up Required) (ID 576)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Meet the Expert
- Track: Radiology/Staging/Screening
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/18/2017, 07:00 - 08:00, Room 501
-
+
MTE 27.02 - Pulmonary Nodule Guidelines: How Do We Decide Between the IELCAP, ACCP, NCCN, Fleischner Society, BTS, and Lung-RADS? (ID 7815)
07:30 - 08:00 | Presenting Author(s): Jin Mo Goo
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract:
In the era of multidetector CT and lung cancer screening with low-dose CT, there are increasing number of incidentally or screen detected pulmonary nodules. Because a pulmonary nodule is an important finding of lung cancer, how to manage these nodules has become an essential issue in dealing with lung cancer, which explains why many guidelines on this topic are available. In this talk, overview of several well-established guidelines or protocols of International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (IELCAP), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Fleischner Society, British Thoracic Society (BTS), and Lung CT screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) will be introduced. Nodule management protocols are different whether nodules are detected at screening programs or incidentally. Screening programs target high-risk subjects who need consistent monitoring, whereas incidentally detected lung nodules represent a different population that needs a varied clinical management. ACCP, BTS, and Fleischner Society guidelines deal with incidental nodules, while IELCAP and Lung-RADS are protocols for screening programs. NCCN guidelines state both issues with separate algorithms. Most pulmonary nodule guidelines have common components: risk factor assessment, nodule size, and nodule consistency. Baseline and annual repeat protocols are different at screening programs. Risk factors include age, smoking history, family history, previous cancer history, occupation exposure, etc. Nodules smaller than certain thresholds (NCCN, < 4 mm; ACCP and BTS, < 5 mm; Fleischner, IELCAP, and Lung-RADS, < 6 mm) do not require routine follow-up. The management for larger nodules varies with guidelines, but 8 mm and/or 15 mm are frequently recommended thresholds for more workups. Nodules can be classified into solid, part-solid, and pure ground-glass nodule according to their consistency. Because the likelihood of malignancy and growth rates are quite different depending on the nodule consistency, this classification is important in nodule management. Nodule volumetry and risk-prediction models such as the Brock University tool, currently employed in BTS guidelines, may be used more frequently in future guidelines. While the Fleischner Society, IELCAP, and Lung-RADS guidelines are relatively straightforward focused on the initial workup, ACCP, NCCN, and BTS guidelines also deal with the further workup and treatment. Some studies have shown that there is high awareness and adoption of these guidelines, but there are varying degrees of conformance with these recommendations. With the accumulation of large data, these guidelines will be more meticulous and evidence-based. Computerized tools that can assess both clinical and radiologic information will facilitate handling the issue of nodule management. References I-ELCAP protocol documents at http://www.ielcap.org/protocols Gould MK, et al. Evaluation of individuals with pulmonary nodules: when is it lung cancer? Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2013 May;143(5 Suppl):e93S-e120S. NCCN guidelines at https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp Callister ME, et al. British Thoracic Society guidelines for the investigation and management of pulmonary nodules. Thorax. 2015 Aug;70 Suppl 2:ii1-ii54. MacMahon H, et al. Guidelines for Management of Incidental Pulmonary Nodules Detected on CT Images: From the Fleischner Society 2017. Radiology. 2017 Jul;284(1):228-243. Lung-RADS at https://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/LungRADS
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
OA 14 - New Paradigms in Clinical Trials (ID 681)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Oral
- Track: Clinical Design, Statistics and Clinical Trials
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:Alex Adjei, Eun Kyung Cho
- Coordinates: 10/18/2017, 11:00 - 12:30, Room 311 + 312
-
+
OA 14.01 - The Impact of Measurement Variability on Response Categorization in Oncology Trials (ID 9986)
11:00 - 11:10 | Author(s): Jin Mo Goo
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Radiologic assessments of the baseline and post-treatment tumor burden are subject to measurement variability, but the impact of this variability on response categorization and the resulting overall response rate (ORR) in a specific trial has been practically unpredictable.
Method:
We built up a hierarchical model of measurement variability using a clinical trial dataset of CT scans. Simulations were then performed using the model 1) to establish the behaviour of differences between the first and the hypothetical second assessments of percent change of tumor burden in various scenarios, 2) to elaborate on the probabilistic nature of decisions about categorization, and 3) to estimate the variation in the ORR due to measurement variability.
Result:
The extent of the discrepancies between assessments of the percent change depended on the baseline burden. Smaller differences were associated with larger shrinkage of tumor burdens. The simulated probability for a specific categorization (-30% or 20%) to result from reassessment had a sigmoid shape depending on the percent change in the first set of readings, inflecting at the cutoff point for the categorization. In 3 virtual trials having the same baseline burden and the same ORR of 50%, the presence of fewer percent changes around the cutoff in a trial resulted in a more reproducible ORR (95% central range, 35%-65% vs. 40%-60% vs. 45%-60%). Figure 1
Conclusion:
Since determinations of partial response or progression are probabilistic outcomes due to measurement variability, quantification of the variation in the ORR by potential measurement variability is essential and will help inform decisions made on the basis of trial data.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
P1.13 - Radiology/Staging/Screening (ID 699)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: Radiology/Staging/Screening
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/16/2017, 09:30 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
-
+
P1.13-011d - Risk of Pleural Recurrence After Percutaneous Transthoracic Needle Biopsy in Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Large Center Experience (ID 10019)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): Jin Mo Goo
- Abstract
Background:
To determine whether percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy (PTNB) increase the risk of (a) isolated pleural recurrence and (b) concomitant pleural seeding and metastasis in stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Method:
In this institutional review board-approved retrospective study, medical records of total of 830 consecutive patients with stage I NSCLC who underwent curative resection between 2004 and 2010 were reviewed. Median duration of follow-up was 1843 days (interquartile range, 1006-2734). Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors of pleural recurrence.
Result:
Of 830 patients, 540 patients (65.1%) underwent PTNB before surgery, while 290 patients (34.9%) underwent non-PTNB procedures including bronchoscopic biopsy or exploratory thoracotomy. An isolated pleural recurrence was found in 26 patients (3.1%, [95%CI, 2.1-4.6%]) (20 in PTNB group, 6 in non-PTNB group). There was no significant association between PTNB and isolated pleural recurrence (P=0.197). Concomitant pleural recurrence occurred in 42 patients (5.1%, [95%CI, 3.8-6.8%]) (34 in PTNB group, and 8 in non-PTNB group). Subpleural location (p=0.007), tumor consistency (solid, part-solid, nonsolid) (p=0.046), PTNB (p=0.027), pathologic T stage (p<0.001), microscopic pleural invasion (p<0.001) and microscopic lymphatic invasion (p=0.019) were associated with concomitant pleural recurrence. The most significant factor of pleural recurrence was only microscopic pleural invasion (Odds Ratio, 4.28; 95% CI, 2.20 to 8.29) (P<0.001) on multiple logistic analysis. Among 540 patients undergoing PTNB, transfissural approach did not have significant association with pleural recurrence (P=0.220), while the most sole significant factor was microscopic pleural invasion (Odds Ratio, 3.40; 95% CI, 1.54 to 7.51) (P=0.002).
Conclusion:
PTNB did not increase the risk of isolated or concomitant pleural recurrence in early stage NSCLC. Higher incidence of concomitant pleural seeding in PTNB group was presumably attributed to peripheral lung cancer, potentially accompanying microscopic pleural invasion.
