RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer risk prediction models might efficiently identify individuals who should be offered lung cancer screening. However, their performance has not been comprehensively evaluated in Europe. We aimed to externally validate and evaluate the performance of several risk prediction models that predict lung cancer incidence or mortality in prospective European cohorts. METHODS: We analysed 240 137 participants aged 45-80 years with a current or former smoking history from nine European countries in four prospective cohorts from the pooled database of the Lung Cancer Cohort Consortium: the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study (Finland), the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (Norway), CONSTANCES (France), and the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (Denmark, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Norway). We evaluated ten lung cancer risk models, which comprised the Bach, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial 2012 model (PLCOm2012), the Lung Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (LCRAT), the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool (LCDRAT), the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT), the Optimized Early Warning Model for Lung Cancer Risk (OWL), the University College London-Death (UCLD), the University College London-Incidence (UCLI), the Liverpool Lung Project version 2 (LLP version 2), and the Liverpool Lung Project version 3 (LLP version 3) models. We quantified model calibration as the ratio of expected to observed cases or deaths and discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). For each model, we also identified risk thresholds that would screen the same number of individuals as each of the US Preventive Services Task Force 2021 (USPSTF-2021), the US Preventive Services Task Force 2013 (USPSTF-2013), and the Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON) criteria. FINDINGS: Among the participants, 1734 lung cancer cases and 1072 lung cancer deaths occurred within five years of enrolment. Most models had reasonable calibration in most countries, although the LLP version 2 overpredicted risk by more than 50% in eight countries (expected to observed ≥1·50). The PLCOm2012, LCDRAT, LCRAT, Bach, HUNT, OWL, UCLD, and UCLI models showed similar discrimination in most countries, with AUCs ranging from 0·68 (95% CI 0·59-0·77) to 0·83 (0·78-0·89), whereas the LLP version 2 and LLP version 3 showed lower discrimination, with AUCs ranging from 0·64 (95% CI 0·57-0·72) to 0·78 (0·74-0·83). When pooling data from all countries (but excluding the HUNT cohort), 33·9% (73 313 of 216 387) of individuals were eligible by USPSTF-2021 criteria, which included 74·8% (1185) of lung cancers and 76·3% (730) of lung cancer deaths occurring over 5 years. Fewer individuals were selected by USPSTF-2013 and NELSON criteria. After applying thresholds to select a population of equal size to USPSTF-2021, the PLCOm2012, LCDRAT, LCRAT, Bach, HUNT, OWL, UCLD, and UCLI, models identified 77·6%-79·1% of future cases, although they selected slightly older individuals compared with USPSTF-2021 criteria. Results were similar for USPSTF-2013 and NELSON. INTERPRETATION: Several lung cancer risk prediction models showed good performance in European countries and might improve the efficiency of lung cancer screening if used in place of categorical eligibility criteria. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute, l'Institut National du Cancer, Cancer Research UK.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The recommendation for lung cancer screening (LCS) developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) may exclude some high-benefit people. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether alternative criteria can identify these high-benefit people. DESIGN: Model-based projections. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: People from the 1997-2014 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to develop alternative criteria using fast-and-frugal tree algorithms and from the 2014-2018 NHIS and the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for comparisons of USPSTF criteria versus alternative criteria. MEASUREMENTS: Life-years gained from LCS were estimated using the life-years gained from screening computed tomography (LYFS-CT) model. "High-benefit" was defined as gaining an average of at least 16.2 days of life from 3 annual screenings, which reflects high lung cancer risk and substantial life gains if lung cancer is detected by screening. RESULTS: The final alternative criteria were 1) people who smoked any amount each year for at least 40 years, or 2) people aged 60 to 80 years with at least 40 pack-years of smoking. The USPSTF and alternative criteria selected similar numbers of people for LCS. Compared with the USPSTF criteria, the alternative criteria had higher sensitivity (91% vs. 78%; P < 0.001) and specificity (86% vs. 84%; P < 0.001) for identifying high-benefit people. For racial and ethnic minorities, the alternative criteria provided greater gains in sensitivity than the USPSTF criteria (Black: 83% vs. 56% [P < 0.001]; Hispanic: 95% vs. 73% [P = 0.086]; Asian: 94% vs. 68% [P = 0.171]) at similar specificity. The alternative criteria identify high-risk, high-benefit groups excluded by the USPSTF criteria (those with a smoking duration of ≥40 years but <20 pack-years and a quit history of >15 years), many of whom are members of racial and ethnic minorities. LIMITATION: The results were based on model projections. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that simple alternative LCS criteria can identify substantially more high-benefit people, especially in some racial and ethnic groups. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Lung Precision Oncology Program.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, mainly due to late diagnosis and the presence of metastases. Several countries around the world have adopted nation-wide LDCT-based lung cancer screening that will benefit patients, shifting the stage at diagnosis to earlier stages with more therapeutic options. Biomarkers can help to optimize the screening process, as well as refine the TNM stratification of lung cancer patients, providing information regarding prognostics and recommending management strategies. Moreover, novel adjuvant strategies will clearly benefit from previous knowledge of the potential aggressiveness and biological traits of a given early-stage surgically resected tumor. This review focuses on proteins as promising biomarkers in the context of lung cancer screening. Despite great efforts, there are still no successful examples of biomarkers in lung cancer that have reached the clinics to be used in early detection and early management. Thus, the field of biomarkers in early lung cancer remains an evident unmet need. A more specific objective of this review is to present an up-to-date technical assessment of the potential use of protein biomarkers in early lung cancer detection and management. We provide an overview regarding the benefits, challenges, pitfalls and constraints in the development process of protein-based biomarkers. Additionally, we examine how a number of emerging protein analytical technologies may contribute to the optimization of novel robust biomarkers for screening and effective management of lung cancer.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Importance: Randomized clinical trials of cancer screening typically use cancer-specific mortality as the primary end point. The incidence of stage III-IV cancer is a potential alternative end point that may accelerate completion of randomized clinical trials of cancer screening. Objective: To compare cancer-specific mortality with stage III-IV cancer as end points in randomized clinical trials of cancer screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: This meta-analysis included 41 randomized clinical trials of cancer screening conducted in Europe, North America, and Asia published through February 19, 2024. Data extracted included numbers of participants, cancer diagnoses, and cancer deaths in the intervention and comparison groups. For each clinical trial, the effect of screening was calculated as the percentage reduction between the intervention and comparison groups in the incidence of participants with cancer-specific mortality and stage III-IV cancer. Exposures: Randomization to a cancer screening test or to a comparison group in a clinical trial of cancer screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points of cancer-specific mortality and incidence of stage III-IV cancer were compared using Pearson correlation coefficients with 95% CIs, linear regression, and fixed-effects meta-analysis. Results: The included randomized clinical trials tested benefits of screening for breast (n = 6), colorectal (n = 11), lung (n = 12), ovarian (n = 4), prostate (n = 4), and other cancers (n = 4). Correlation between reductions in cancer-specific mortality and stage III-IV cancer varied by cancer type (I2 = 65%; P = .02). Correlation was highest for trials that screened for ovarian (Pearson ρ = 0.99 [95% CI, 0.51-1.00]) and lung (Pearson ρ = 0.92 [95% CI, 0.72-0.98]) cancers, moderate for breast cancer (Pearson ρ = 0.70 [95% CI, -0.26 to 0.96]), and weak for colorectal (Pearson ρ = 0.39 [95% CI, -0.27 to 0.80]) and prostate (Pearson ρ = -0.69 [95% CI, -0.99 to 0.81]) cancers. Slopes from linear regression were estimated as 1.15 for ovarian cancer, 0.75 for lung cancer, 0.40 for colorectal cancer, 0.28 for breast cancer, and -3.58 for prostate cancer, suggesting that a given magnitude of reduction in incidence of stage III-IV cancer produced different magnitudes of change in incidence of cancer-specific mortality (P for heterogeneity = .004). Conclusions and Relevance: In randomized clinical trials of cancer screening, incidence of late-stage cancer may be a suitable alternative end point to cancer-specific mortality for some cancer types, but is not suitable for others. These results have implications for clinical trials of multicancer screening tests.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Risk-tailored screening has emerged as a promising approach to optimise the balance of benefits and harms of existing population cancer screening programs. It tailors screening (e.g., eligibility, frequency, interval, test type) to individual risk rather than the current one-size-fits-all approach of most organised population screening programs. However, the implementation of risk-tailored cancer screening in the population is challenging as it requires a change of practice at multiple levels i.e., individual, provider, health system levels. This scoping review aims to synthesise current implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population, identifying barriers, facilitators, and associated implementation outcomes. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified via database searches up to February 2023. Results were synthesised using Tierney et al. (2020) guidance for evidence synthesis of implementation outcomes and a multilevel framework. RESULTS: Of 4138 titles identified, 74 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies in this review focused on the implementation outcomes of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness, reflecting the pre-implementation stage of most research to date. Only six studies included an implementation framework. The review identified consistent evidence that risk-tailored screening is largely acceptable across population groups, however reluctance to accept a reduction in screening frequency for low-risk informed by cultural norms, presents a major barrier. Limited studies were identified for cancer types other than breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation strategies will need to address alternate models of delivery, education of health professionals, communication with the public, screening options for people at low risk of cancer, and inequity in outcomes across cancer types.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer substantially reduces mortality from lung cancer, as revealed in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. This review is based on the ninth CT screening symposium of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, which focuses on the major themes pertinent to the successful global implementation of LDCT screening and develops a strategy to further the implementation of lung cancer screening globally. These recommendations provide a 5-year roadmap to advance the implementation of LDCT screening globally, including the following: (1) establish universal screening program quality indicators; (2) establish evidence-based criteria to identify individuals who have never smoked but are at high-risk of developing lung cancer; (3) develop recommendations for incidentally detected lung nodule tracking and management protocols to complement programmatic lung cancer screening; (4) Integrate artificial intelligence and biomarkers to increase the prediction of malignancy in suspicious CT screen-detected lesions; and (5) standardize high-quality performance artificial intelligence protocols that lead to substantial reductions in costs, resource utilization and radiologist reporting time; (6) personalize CT screening intervals on the basis of an individual's lung cancer risk; (7) develop evidence to support clinical management and cost-effectiveness of other identified abnormalities on a lung cancer screening CT; (8) develop publicly accessible, easy-to-use geospatial tools to plan and monitor equitable access to screening services; and (9) establish a global shared education resource for lung cancer screening CT to ensure high-quality reading and reporting.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

An estimated 38 million people live with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) worldwide and are at excess risk for multiple cancer types. Elevated cancer risks in people living with HIV (PLWH) are driven primarily by increased exposure to carcinogens, most notably oncogenic viruses acquired through shared transmission routes, plus acceleration of viral carcinogenesis by HIV-related immunosuppression. In the era of widespread antiretroviral therapy (ART), life expectancy of PLWH has increased, with cancer now a leading cause of co-morbidity and death. Furthermore, the types of cancers occurring among PLWH are shifting over time and vary in their relative burden in different parts of the world. In this context, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a meeting in September 2022 of multinational and multidisciplinary experts to focus on cancer in PLWH. This report summarizes the proceedings, including a review of the state of the science of cancer descriptive epidemiology, etiology, molecular tumor characterization, primary and secondary prevention, treatment disparities and survival in PLWH around the world. A consensus of key research priorities and recommendations in these domains is also presented.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Although lung cancer prediction models are widely used to support risk-based screening, their performance outside Western populations remains uncertain. This study aims to evaluate the performance of 11 existing risk prediction models in multiple Asian populations and to refit prediction models for Asians. METHODS: In a pooled analysis of 186,458 Asian ever-smokers from 19 prospective cohorts, we assessed calibration (expected-to-observed ratio) and discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]) for each model. In addition, we developed the "Shanghai models" to better refine risk models for Asians on the basis of two well-characterized population-based prospective cohorts and externally validated them in other Asian cohorts. RESULTS: Among the 11 models, the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool yielded the highest AUC (AUC [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.71 [0.67-0.74] for lung cancer death and 0.69 [0.67-0.72] for lung cancer incidence) and the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Model had good calibration overall (expected-to-observed ratio [95% CI] = 1.06 [0.90-1.25]). Nevertheless, these models substantially underestimated lung cancer risk among Asians who reported less than 10 smoking pack-years or stopped smoking more than or equal to 20 years ago. The Shanghai models were found to have marginal improvement overall in discrimination (AUC [95% CI] = 0.72 [0.69-0.74] for lung cancer death and 0.70 [0.67-0.72] for lung cancer incidence) but consistently outperformed the selected Western models among low-intensity smokers and long-term quitters. CONCLUSIONS: The Shanghai models had comparable performance overall to the best existing models, but they improved much in predicting the lung cancer risk of low-intensity smokers and long-term quitters in Asia.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Differences in the average age at cancer diagnosis are observed across countries. We therefore aimed to assess international variation in the median age at diagnosis of common cancers worldwide, after adjusting for differences in population age structure. We used IARC's Cancer Incidence in Five Continents (CI5) Volume XI database, comprising cancer diagnoses between 2008 and 2012 from population-based cancer registries in 65 countries. We calculated crude median ages at diagnosis for lung, colon, breast and prostate cancers in each country, then adjusted for population age differences using indirect standardization. We showed that median ages at diagnosis changed by up to 10 years after standardization, typically increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and decreasing in high-income countries (HICs), given relatively younger and older populations, respectively. After standardization, the range of ages at diagnosis was 12 years for lung cancer (median age 61-Bulgaria vs 73-Bahrain), 12 years for colon cancer (60-the Islamic Republic of Iran vs 72-Peru), 10 years for female breast cancer (49-Algeria, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Republic of Korea vs 59-USA and others) and 10 years for prostate cancer (65-USA, Lithuania vs 75-Philippines). Compared to HICs, populations in LMICs were diagnosed with colon cancer at younger ages but with prostate cancer at older ages (both pLMICS-vs-HICs < 0.001). In countries with higher smoking prevalence, lung cancers were diagnosed at younger ages in both women and men (both pcorr < 0.001). Female breast cancer tended to be diagnosed at younger ages in East Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Our findings suggest that the differences in median ages at cancer diagnosis worldwide likely reflect population-level variation in risk factors and cancer control measures, including screening.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the temporal association between kidney function, assessed by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and the risk of incident renal cell carcinoma (RCC). We also evaluated whether eGFR could improve RCC risk discrimination beyond established risk factors. METHODS: We analyzed the UK Biobank cohort, including 463,178 participants of whom 1,447 were diagnosed with RCC during 5,696,963 person-years of follow-up. We evaluated the temporal association between eGFR and RCC risk using flexible parametric survival models, adjusted for C-reactive protein and RCC risk factors. eGFR was calculated from creatinine and cystatin C levels. RESULTS: Lower eGFR, an indication of poor kidney function, was associated with higher RCC risk when measured up to 5 years prior to diagnosis. The RCC HR per SD decrease in eGFR when measured 1 year before diagnosis was 1.26 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.16-1.37], and 1.11 (95% CI, 1.05-1.17) when measured 5 years before diagnosis. Adding eGFR to the RCC risk model provided a small improvement in risk discrimination 1 year before diagnosis with an AUC of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67-0.84) compared with the published model (0.69; 95% CI, 0.63-0.79). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that kidney function markers are associated with RCC risk, but the nature of these associations are consistent with reversed causality. Markers of kidney function provided limited improvements in RCC risk discrimination beyond established risk factors. IMPACT: eGFR may be of potential use to identify individuals in the extremes of the risk distribution.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The advent of multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests has the potential to revolutionise the diagnosis of cancer, improving patient outcomes through early diagnosis and increased use of curative therapies. The ongoing NHS-Galleri trial is evaluating an MCED test developed by GRAIL, and is using as its primary endpoint the absolute incidence of late-stage cancer. Proponents of this outcome argue that if the test reduces the number of patients with advanced, incurable cancer, it can be reasonably assumed to be benefitting patients by reducing cancer mortality. Here, we argue that this assumption may not always hold due to the phenomenon of micro-metastatic disease, and propose an adjustment to the trial outcome so that it may better reflect the expected effect of the test on cancer mortality.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Importance: Using race and ethnicity in clinical prediction models can reduce or inadvertently increase racial and ethnic disparities in medical decisions. Objective: To compare eligibility for lung cancer screening in a contemporary representative US population by refitting the life-years gained from screening-computed tomography (LYFS-CT) model to exclude race and ethnicity vs a counterfactual eligibility approach that recalculates life expectancy for racial and ethnic minority individuals using the same covariates but substitutes White race and uses the higher predicted life expectancy, ensuring that historically underserved groups are not penalized. Design, Setting, and Participants: The 2 submodels composing LYFS-CT NoRace were refit and externally validated without race and ethnicity: the lung cancer death submodel in participants of a large clinical trial (recruited 1993-2001; followed up until December 31, 2009) who ever smoked (n = 39 180) and the all-cause mortality submodel in the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 1997-2001 participants aged 40 to 80 years who ever smoked (n = 74 842, followed up until December 31, 2006). Screening eligibility was examined in NHIS 2015-2018 participants aged 50 to 80 years who ever smoked. Data were analyzed from June 2021 to September 2022. Exposure: Including and removing race and ethnicity (African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, White) in each LYFS-CT submodel. Main Outcomes and Measures: By race and ethnicity: calibration of the LYFS-CT NoRace model and the counterfactual approach (ratio of expected to observed [E/O] outcomes), US individuals eligible for screening, predicted days of life gained from screening by LYFS-CT. Results: The NHIS 2015-2018 included 25 601 individuals aged 50 to 80 years who ever smoked (2769 African American, 649 Asian American, 1855 Hispanic American, and 20 328 White individuals). Removing race and ethnicity from the submodels underestimated lung cancer death risk (expected/observed [E/O], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-1.00) and all-cause mortality (E/O, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.94) in African American individuals. It also overestimated mortality in Hispanic American (E/O, 1.08, 95% CI, 1.00-1.16) and Asian American individuals (E/O, 1.14, 95% CI, 1.01-1.30). Consequently, the LYFS-CT NoRace model increased Hispanic American and Asian American eligibility by 108% and 73%, respectively, while reducing African American eligibility by 39%. Using LYFS-CT with the counterfactual all-cause mortality model better maintained calibration across groups and increased African American eligibility by 13% without reducing eligibility for Hispanic American and Asian American individuals. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, removing race and ethnicity miscalibrated LYFS-CT submodels and substantially reduced African American eligibility for lung cancer screening. Under counterfactual eligibility, no one became ineligible, and African American eligibility increased, demonstrating the potential for maintaining model accuracy while reducing disparities.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Although lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography is rolling out in many areas of the world, differentiating indeterminate pulmonary nodules remains a major challenge. We conducted one of the first systematic investigations of circulating protein markers to differentiate malignant from benign screen-detected pulmonary nodules. METHODS: Based on 4 international low-dose computed tomography screening studies, we assayed 1078 protein markers using prediagnostic blood samples from 1253 participants based on a nested case-control design. Protein markers were measured using proximity extension assays, and data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression, random forest, and penalized regressions. Protein burden scores (PBSs) for overall nodule malignancy and imminent tumors were estimated. RESULTS: We identified 36 potentially informative circulating protein markers differentiating malignant from benign nodules, representing a tightly connected biological network. Ten markers were found to be particularly relevant for imminent lung cancer diagnoses within 1 year. Increases in PBSs for overall nodule malignancy and imminent tumors by 1 standard deviation were associated with odds ratios of 2.29 (95% confidence interval: 1.95 to 2.72) and 2.81 (95% confidence interval: 2.27 to 3.54) for nodule malignancy overall and within 1 year of diagnosis, respectively. Both PBSs for overall nodule malignancy and for imminent tumors were substantially higher for those with malignant nodules than for those with benign nodules, even when limited to Lung Computed Tomography Screening Reporting and Data System (LungRADS) category 4 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Circulating protein markers can help differentiate malignant from benign pulmonary nodules. Validation with an independent computed tomographic screening study will be required before clinical implementation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: We sought to develop a proteomics-based risk model for lung cancer and evaluate its risk-discriminatory performance in comparison with a smoking-based risk model (PLCOm2012) and a commercially available autoantibody biomarker test. METHODS: We designed a case-control study nested in 6 prospective cohorts, including 624 lung cancer participants who donated blood samples at most 3 years prior to lung cancer diagnosis and 624 smoking-matched cancer free participants who were assayed for 302 proteins. We used 470 case-control pairs from 4 cohorts to select proteins and train a protein-based risk model. We subsequently used 154 case-control pairs from 2 cohorts to compare the risk-discriminatory performance of the protein-based model with that of the Early Cancer Detection Test (EarlyCDT)-Lung and the PLCOm2012 model using receiver operating characteristics analysis and by estimating models' sensitivity. All tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: The area under the curve for the protein-based risk model in the validation sample was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70 to 0.81) compared with 0.64 (95% CI = 0.57 to 0.70) for the PLCOm2012 model (Pdifference = .001). The EarlyCDT-Lung had a sensitivity of 14% (95% CI = 8.2% to 19%) and a specificity of 86% (95% CI = 81% to 92%) for incident lung cancer. At the same specificity of 86%, the sensitivity for the protein-based risk model was estimated at 49% (95% CI = 41% to 57%) and 30% (95% CI = 23% to 37%) for the PLCOm2012 model. CONCLUSION: Circulating proteins showed promise in predicting incident lung cancer and outperformed a standard risk prediction model and the commercialized EarlyCDT-Lung.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: To evaluate whether circulating proteins are associated with survival after lung cancer diagnosis, and whether they can improve prediction of prognosis. METHODS: We measured up to 1159 proteins in blood samples from 708 participants in 6 cohorts. Samples were collected within 3 years prior to lung cancer diagnosis. We used Cox proportional hazards models to identify proteins associated with overall mortality after lung cancer diagnosis. To evaluate model performance, we used a round-robin approach in which models were fit in 5 cohorts and evaluated in the 6th cohort. Specifically, we fit a model including 5 proteins and clinical parameters and compared its performance with clinical parameters only. FINDINGS: There were 86 proteins nominally associated with mortality (p < 0.05), but only CDCP1 remained statistically significant after accounting for multiple testing (hazard ratio per standard deviation: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.10-1.30, unadjusted p = 0.00004). The external C-index for the protein-based model was 0.63 (95% CI: 0.61-0.66), compared with 0.62 (95% CI: 0.59-0.64) for the model with clinical parameters only. Inclusion of proteins did not provide a statistically significant improvement in discrimination (C-index difference: 0.015, 95% CI: -0.003 to 0.035). INTERPRETATION: Blood proteins measured within 3 years prior to lung cancer diagnosis were not strongly associated with lung cancer survival, nor did they importantly improve prediction of prognosis beyond clinical information. FUNDING: No explicit funding for this study. Authors and data collection supported by the US National Cancer Institute (U19CA203654), INCA (France, 2019-1-TABAC-01), Cancer Research Foundation of Northern Sweden (AMP19-962), and Swedish Department of Health Ministry.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV)-related oropharyngeal cancer screening is being explored in research studies, but strategies to identify an appropriate population are not established. The authors evaluated whether a screening population could be enriched for participants with oncogenic HPV biomarkers using risk factors for oral HPV. METHODS: Participants were enrolled at Johns Hopkins Hospitals and Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine. Eligible participants were either men aged 30 years or older who had two or more lifetime oral sex partners and a personal history of anogenital dysplasia/cancer or partners of patients who had HPV-related cancer. Oral rinse and serum samples were tested for oncogenic HPV DNA, RNA, and E6 or E7 antibodies, respectively. Participants with any biomarker were considered at-risk. RESULTS: Of 1108 individuals, 7.3% had any oncogenic oral HPV DNA, and 22.9% had serum antibodies for oncogenic HPV E6 or E7. Seventeen participants (1.5%) had both oral and blood biomarkers. HPV type 16 (HPV16) biomarkers were rarer, detected in 3.7% of participants, including 20 with oral HPV16 DNA and 22 with HPV16 E6 serum antibodies (n = 1 had both). In adjusted analysis, living with HIV (adjusted odds ratio, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.60-4.40) and older age (66-86 vs. 24-45 years; adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.07-2.70) were significant predictors of being at risk. Compared with the general population, the prevalence of oral HPV16 (1.8% vs. 0.9%), any oncogenic oral HPV DNA (7.3% vs. 3.5%), and HPV16 E6 antibodies (2.2% vs. 0.3%) was significantly elevated. CONCLUSIONS: Enrichment by the eligibility criteria successfully identified a population with higher biomarker prevalence, including HPV16 biomarkers, that may be considered for screening trials. Most in this group are still expected to have a low risk of oropharyngeal cancer.

Asunto(s)