Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Volume CT Screening in a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND There are limited data from randomized trials regarding whether volume-based, low-dose computed tomographic (CT) screening can reduce lung-cancer mortality among male former and current smokers. METHODS A total of 13,195 men (primary analysis) and 2594 women (subgroup analyses) between the ages of 50 and 74 were randomly assigned to undergo CT screening at T0 (baseline), year 1, year 3, and year 5.5 or no screening. We obtained data on cancer diagnosis and the date and cause of death through linkages with national registries in the Netherlands and Belgium, and a review committee confirmed lung cancer as the cause of death when possible. A minimum follow-up of 10 years until December 31, 2015, was completed for all participants. RESULTS Among men, the average adherence to CT screening was 90.0%. On average, 9.2% of the screened participants underwent at least one additional CT scan (initially indeterminate). The overall referral rate for suspicious nodules was 2.1%. At 10 years of follow-up, the incidence of lung cancer was 5.58 cases per 1000 personyears in the screening group and 4.91 cases per 1000 person-years in the control group; lung-cancer mortality was 2.50 deaths per 1000 person-years and 3.30 deaths per 1000 person-years, respectively. The cumulative rate ratio for death from lung cancer at 10 years was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.94; P = 0.01) in the screening group as compared with the control group, similar to the values at years 8 and 9. Among women, the rate ratio was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.38 to 1.14) at 10 years of follow-up, with values of 0.41 to 0.52 in years 7 through 9. CONCLUSIONS In this trial involving high-risk persons, lung-cancer mortality was significantly lower among those who underwent volume CT screening than among those who underwent no screening. There were low rates of follow-up procedures for results suggestive of lung cancer. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization of Health Research and Development and others; NELSON Netherlands Trial Register number, NL580.)

Single dose partial breast irradiation using an MRI linear accelerator in the supine and prone treatment position

Background: In selected patients with early-stage and low-risk breast cancer, an MRI-linac based treatment might enable a radiosurgical, non-invasive alternative for current standard breast conserving therapy. Aim: To investigate whether single dose accelerated partial breast (APBI) to the intact tumor in both the prone and supine radiotherapy positions on the MRI-linac is dosimetrically feasible with respect to predefined coverage and organs at risk (OAR) constraints. Material & methods: For 20 patients with cTis or low-risk cT1N0M0 non-lobular breast carcinoma, previously treated with single dose preoperative APBI in the supine (n = 10) or prone (n = 10) position, additional intensity modulated radiotherapy plans with 7 coplanar beams in the presence of a 1.5T magnetic field were generated. A 20 Gy and 15 Gy dose was prescribed to the gross tumor and clinical target volume, respectively. The percentage of plans achieving predefined organ at risk (OAR) constraints, currently used in clinical practice, was assessed. Dosimetry differences between the prone versus supine approach and the MRI-linac versus clinically delivered plans were evaluated. Results: All MRI-linac plans met the coverage and predefined OAR constraints. The prone approach appeared to be more favorable with respect to the chest wall, and ipsilateral lung dose compared to the supine position. No dosimetric differences were observed for the ipsilateral breast. No treatment position was clearly more beneficial for the skin or heart, since dosimetry varied among parameters. Overall, the MRI-linac and clinical plans were comparable, with minor absolute dosimetric differences. Conclusion: MRI-linac based single dose APBI to the intact tumor is a promising and a dosimetrically feasible strategy in patients with low-risk breast cancer. Preliminary OAR dosimetry favored the prone radiotherapy position

Dutch Oncology COVID-19 consortium: Outcome of COVID-19 in patients with cancer in a nationwide cohort study

Aim of the study: Patients with cancer might have an increased risk for severe outcome of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To identify risk factors associated with a worse outcome of COVID-19, a nationwide registry was developed for patients with cancer and COVID-19. Methods: This observational cohort study has been designed as a quality of care registry and is executed by the Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium (DOCC), a nationwide collaboration of oncology physicians in the Netherlands. A questionnaire has been developed to collect pseudonymised patient data on patients' characteristics, cancer diagnosis and treatment. All patients with COVID-19 and a cancer diagnosis or treatment in the past 5 years are eligible. Results: Between March 27th and May 4th, 442 patients were registered. For this first analysis, 351 patients were included of whom 114 patients died. In multivariable analyses, age ≥65 years (p < 0.001), male gender (p = 0.035), prior or other malignancy (p = 0.045) and active diagnosis of haematological malignancy (p = 0.046) or lung cancer (p = 0.003) were independent risk factors for a fatal outcome of COVID-19. In a subgroup analysis of patients with active malignancy, the risk for a fatal outcome was mainly determined by tumour type (haematological malignancy or lung cancer) and age (≥65 years). Conclusion: The findings in this registry indicate that patients with a haematological malignancy or lung cancer have an increased risk of a worse outcome of COVID-19. During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, these vulnerable patients should avoid exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, whereas treatment adjustments and prioritising vaccination, when available, should also be considered

Life-prolonging treatment restrictions and outcomes in patients with cancer and COVID-19: an update from the Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium

Aim of the study: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly impacted cancer care. In this study, clinical patient characteristics related to COVID-19 outcomes and advanced care planning, in terms of non-oncological treatment restrictions (e.g. do-not-resuscitate codes), were studied in patients with cancer and COVID-19. Methods: The Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium registry was launched in March 2020 in 45 hospitals in the Netherlands, primarily to identify risk factors of a severe COVID-19 outcome in patients with cancer. Here, an updated analysis of the registry was performed, and treatment restrictions (e.g. do-not-intubate codes) were studied in relation to COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer. Oncological treatment restrictions were not taken into account. Results: Between 27th March 2020 and 4th February 2021, 1360 patients with cancer and COVID-19 were registered. Follow-up data of 830 patients could be validated for this analysis. Overall, 230 of 830 (27.7%) patients died of COVID-19, and 60% of the remaining 600 patients with resolved COVID-19 were admitted to the hospital. Patients with haematological malignancies or lung cancer had a higher risk of a fatal outcome than other solid tumours. No correlation between anticancer therapies and the risk of a fatal COVID-19 outcome was found. In terms of end-of-life communication, 50% of all patients had restrictions regarding life-prolonging treatment (e.g. do-not-intubate codes). Most identified patients with treatment restrictions had risk factors associated with fatal COVID-19 outcome. Conclusion: There was no evidence of a negative impact of anticancer therapies on COVID-19 outcomes. Timely end-of-life communication as part of advanced care planning could save patients from prolonged suffering and decrease burden in intensive care units. Early discussion of treatment restrictions should therefore be part of routine oncological care, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic

Diagnosis and management of pulmonary nodules

There are an increased number of pulmonary nodules discovered on CT scan images in part due to those performed for lung cancer screening. Risk stratification and patient involvement is critical in determining management ranging from interval imaging to invasive biopsy or surgery. A definitive diagnosis requires tissue biopsy. The choice of a particular biopsy technique depends on the risks/benefits of the procedure, the diagnostic yield and local expertise. This review will focus on the evaluation and management of pulmonary nodules based on the Fleischner Society and American College of Chest Physician guidelines. There have been recent changes to both societies' recommendations for incidental detection of solid and subsolid nodules, risk stratification, imaging, minimally invasive diagnostic techniques and definitive surgical options