Lung Cancer

Lung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related deaths, and screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has the potential to decrease the mortality rate of patients by 20%.¹ Most major cancer societies have issued lung cancer screening recommendations. For example, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends annual LDCT scans for high-risk patients (those at moderate or low risk need not be screened). High-risk patients are aged between 55 and 74 years (the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force upper age limit is 80 years) and have a smoking history of ≥ 30 pack-years, or if no longer smoking, a quit date within the past 15 years. Although length of screening needed is unclear, it is advised that patients have annual LDCT scans until they have been smoke free for 15 years, develop limited life expectancy, or are no longer eligible for definitive treatment for lung cancer. A strong antismoking commitment and a multidisciplinary approach are of paramount importance.^2,3

Fleischner Society criteria are the most established guidelines for risk-stratifying pulmonary nodules (Table 1). Nodules are stratified by size and change in size over a 2-year period. There is interest in evaluating change in volume as well, but techniques are still emerging and have not been universally adopted.^4,5

Lung nodule screening likely will require significant involvement of radiologists and pulmonologists in the workup of patients with positive screens. Radiologists have demonstrated a fair amount of interobserver agreement with respect to diagnosis, but there are no data comparing pulmonologists with other pulmonologists or with radiologists.^6-8 In addition, although health care professionals have access to validated models for predicting risk of malignancy, there is evidence they do not use them.^9,10 This study was conducted to determine whether pulmonologists and radiologists experienced in thoracic abnormalities are consistent in accurately diagnosing malignant lung nodules and masses noted on CT scans.

Methods

After obtaining institutional review board approval for this study, the authors evaluated all the lung nodule or lung mass referrals that had been made to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) and Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System (CAVHS) interventional pulmonary clinics between March 2009 and March 2013. Of the 1,512 referrals made, 250 were randomly selected for noncontrasted CT image review and data collection. Each CT image was de-identified and then reviewed by a pulmonologist and a radiologist. The study used 4 reviewers—2 board-certified pulmonologists and 2 board-certified radiologists—all with > 3 years of experience. Both radiologists were thoracic specialists, and no residents or fellows participated. For each case, reviewers were given a brief patient history outlining smoking and other malignancies. Data collected included age, sex, race, exposure to cigarette smoking, and the gold standard of final diagnosis (FD).

In each case, a pulmonologist and a radiologist reviewed the patient’s CT images from the first visit. Reviewers were asked to determine and document the single most likely diagnosis. Diagnoses were grouped into primary lung cancer, metastatic disease, lymphoma, infectious/inflammatory etiology, benign neoplasm, and other (eg, sarcoma). A lesion with a diagnostic biopsy and stability at 2 years was deemed benign. A lesion that was culture-positive or responded rapidly to antibacterial or antifungal therapy was deemed infectious/inflammatory. Lesions were grouped by size: group 1 (≤ 10 mm), group 2 (11-30 mm), group 3 (31-50 mm), group 4 (≥ 51 mm).

Statistical Analyses

Student t tests were used to compare means. Concordance of the pulmonary reviewers and FD was assessed with the κ coefficient. The concordance was also evaluated between the radiology reviewers and FD. These statistical analyses were performed with SAS Version 9.4 (SAS Institute). P values were interpreted using the sliding-scale approach of Mendenhall and colleagues: P < .01 (highly significant); .01 < P < .05 (statistically significant); .05 < P < .10 (trending toward significance); P > .10 (not significant).¹¹

Results

Of the 250 patients selected for the study, 111 had the pertinent data available, along with a follow-up appointment > 2 years afterward at the center. The patients included 40 women and 71 men; 79 white patients, 29 black patients, and 3 patients of other races. Mean age was 58 years (range, 21-93 years).

Risk factors for malignancy were older age, larger lesion, and history of smoking. The malignancy rates for women and men were almost identical (53% and 54%, respectively), and the difference was not statistically significant (P = .40).

Diagnosis

Table 2 outlines the distribution of the reviewers’ diagnoses and the distribution of FD. Primary lung cancer was the dominant suspected diagnosis and accounted for 61%, 65%, and 54% of the cases reviewed by the pulmonologist, the radiologist, and FD, respectively. Metastatic disease was a distant second dominant diagnosis (17%, 15%, and 15%, respectively). There was no statistical difference between the reviews of the pulmonologist and radiologist, and the FD (P > .05).

Table 3 lists the κ results for the strength of agreement between pulmonologist and radiologist. Agreement for primary lung cancer was very good: 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-0.99). With respect to group 1, agreement was perfect: 1.0 (95% CI, 1.000-1.000). Benign neoplasm had the weakest agreement. There was no statistical difference between pulmonologist and radiologist determinations across size-based groups.Agreement between pulmonologist and FD was almost perfect. The major discrepancy between the sets of reviewers remained benign neoplasm and infectious/inflammatory etiology.

Of the 111 study patients, 68 (61%) and 72 (65%) were suspected of having primary lung cancer by pulmonologist and radiologist, respectively. However, only 60 (54%) actually had primary lung cancer; the differences were not statistically significant (P = .27 and .1, respectively). No cases were reclassified as primary lung cancer on final pathology.

Infectious/inflammatory etiologies did not always have positive cultures. Those with positive cultures included Streptococcus (S) viridans, Rhodococcus equi, Blastomyces dermatitidis, S constellatus, S anginosus, S intermedius, and Histoplasma capsulatum. Benign neoplasms included radiation injuries, benign fibrous tumor of the pleura, and hamartoma.

Pulmonologists and radiologists had identical high sensitivities for primary lung cancer: 1.0 (95% CI, 0.94-1.00). Specificities were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77-0.84) for pulmonologists and 0.77(95% CI, 0.69-0.77) for radiologists, and the difference was not statistically significant (P = .28) (Table 4).

Discussion

Computed tomography scans are performed to evaluate a variety of diseases. An estimated 7 million CT scans are performed in the U.S. annually.^6,12 As the National Lung Screening Trial recommendations are followed more routinely, almost 9 million peoplecould become candidates, adding to the already large number of CTscans to be evaluated.¹³

Radiologists would understandably read most of these patients’ scans. However, patients referred to tertiary-care centers usually bring CT images with them; even scans performed at UAMS and CAVHS centers may not be read by a radiologist in time for an appointment. The result is that the clinic pulmonologist often must base decisions on a CT reading, but without the assistance of high-fidelity computer programs or a high-definition scan.⁵ These limitations indicate why it is important to know whether assessment by a pulmonologist compares favorably with assessment by a radiologist and with the eventual diagnosis.

The malignancy rate in the referred population is not insignificant. Halbert and colleagues found a 25% malignancy rate in their study,¹² and the present study had an overall malignancy rate of 54%. The difference may be attributed to the possibility that the patients may have been prescreened prior to referral.

The reviewers overestimated the presence of malignant disease, though not to a level of statistical significance. About 88% of cases evaluated by a pulmonologist and 83% of cases evaluated by a radiologist were confirmed to be malignant. The reviewers’ sensitivity was perfect for all diagnoses except benign neoplasms, likely because these cases were classified malignant, thus increasing sensitivity but decreasing specificity.

This dynamic is important to understand, as it allows for a very high negative predictive value, which has real implications for resource management at VA hospitals, including CAVHS facility, where almost every CT scan with an abnormality is referred for pulmonologist consultation. In these cases, the radiologist not only lists the likely suspicion but includes a recommendation for follow-up or further workup based on Fleischner Society guidelines.^4,14 The patient should be informed of findings as soon as the radiologist reads the CT scan, and a plan should be made on the basis of the recommendation. The patient should not have to unnecessarily wait—a potential source of anxiety—to see another specialist who would probably make the same recommendation.

Applying this study’s findings could improve workflow and the timing of CT scans. A patient should not be referred to a pulmonologist unless specifically recommended by a radiologist, thus decreasing the scheduling burden on the specialty clinic and allowing for appropriate patients to be scheduled at reasonable intervals. In addition, having only 1 person in charge of ordering CT scans could reduce the chance of duplicating orders and performing CT scans at inappropriate times.

Most important, these results should lead to more detailed physician–patient discussions about radiologic findings, hopefully alleviating any patient anxiety. A patient who still wants to see a specialist may, but with less stress that can accompany being told that there is “something abnormal” on the imaging and that the patient needs to see a lung doctor.

Limitations

This study had a few weaknesses. It was a small trial, and its data were collected retrospectively. In addition, generalizing its results may be difficult, as its reviewers had less than 5 years of training, and reviewers with more experience likely would be more accurate and have a higher rate of agreement.

Results could have been skewed by the study’s unusually large number of patients with malignant disease. Had the study been conducted with a larger population (patients at primary care offices), accuracy and agreement might have been lower.

Conclusion

This study answered its 2 questions. Although it is universally accepted that pulmonologists can review patients’ scans, to the authors’ knowledge this is the first study that asked, “Are pulmonologists as good as radiologists in reading CT scans?” The answer is yes. Also asked was, “Do pulmonologists’ and radiologists’ diagnoses predict the final path?” The reviewers’ were very accurate except in the case of benign neoplasms.

Experienced pulmonologists and radiologists are consistent in accurately diagnosing malignant lung nodules and lung masses noted on CT scans.

Lung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related deaths, and screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has the potential to decrease the mortality rate of patients by 20%.¹ Most major cancer societies have issued lung cancer screening recommendations. For example, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends annual LDCT scans for high-risk patients (those at moderate or low risk need not be screened). High-risk patients are aged between 55 and 74 years (the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force upper age limit is 80 years) and have a smoking history of ≥ 30 pack-years, or if no longer smoking, a quit date within the past 15 years. Although length of screening needed is unclear, it is advised that patients have annual LDCT scans until they have been smoke free for 15 years, develop limited life expectancy, or are no longer eligible for definitive treatment for lung cancer. A strong antismoking commitment and a multidisciplinary approach are of paramount importance.^2,3

Fleischner Society criteria are the most established guidelines for risk-stratifying pulmonary nodules (Table 1). Nodules are stratified by size and change in size over a 2-year period. There is interest in evaluating change in volume as well, but techniques are still emerging and have not been universally adopted.^4,5

Lung nodule screening likely will require significant involvement of radiologists and pulmonologists in the workup of patients with positive screens. Radiologists have demonstrated a fair amount of interobserver agreement with respect to diagnosis, but there are no data comparing pulmonologists with other pulmonologists or with radiologists.^6-8 In addition, although health care professionals have access to validated models for predicting risk of malignancy, there is evidence they do not use them.^9,10 This study was conducted to determine whether pulmonologists and radiologists experienced in thoracic abnormalities are consistent in accurately diagnosing malignant lung nodules and masses noted on CT scans.

Methods

After obtaining institutional review board approval for this study, the authors evaluated all the lung nodule or lung mass referrals that had been made to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) and Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System (CAVHS) interventional pulmonary clinics between March 2009 and March 2013. Of the 1,512 referrals made, 250 were randomly selected for noncontrasted CT image review and data collection. Each CT image was de-identified and then reviewed by a pulmonologist and a radiologist. The study used 4 reviewers—2 board-certified pulmonologists and 2 board-certified radiologists—all with > 3 years of experience. Both radiologists were thoracic specialists, and no residents or fellows participated. For each case, reviewers were given a brief patient history outlining smoking and other malignancies. Data collected included age, sex, race, exposure to cigarette smoking, and the gold standard of final diagnosis (FD).

In each case, a pulmonologist and a radiologist reviewed the patient’s CT images from the first visit. Reviewers were asked to determine and document the single most likely diagnosis. Diagnoses were grouped into primary lung cancer, metastatic disease, lymphoma, infectious/inflammatory etiology, benign neoplasm, and other (eg, sarcoma). A lesion with a diagnostic biopsy and stability at 2 years was deemed benign. A lesion that was culture-positive or responded rapidly to antibacterial or antifungal therapy was deemed infectious/inflammatory. Lesions were grouped by size: group 1 (≤ 10 mm), group 2 (11-30 mm), group 3 (31-50 mm), group 4 (≥ 51 mm).

Statistical Analyses

Student t tests were used to compare means. Concordance of the pulmonary reviewers and FD was assessed with the κ coefficient. The concordance was also evaluated between the radiology reviewers and FD. These statistical analyses were performed with SAS Version 9.4 (SAS Institute). P values were interpreted using the sliding-scale approach of Mendenhall and colleagues: P < .01 (highly significant); .01 < P < .05 (statistically significant); .05 < P < .10 (trending toward significance); P > .10 (not significant).¹¹

Results

Of the 250 patients selected for the study, 111 had the pertinent data available, along with a follow-up appointment > 2 years afterward at the center. The patients included 40 women and 71 men; 79 white patients, 29 black patients, and 3 patients of other races. Mean age was 58 years (range, 21-93 years).

Risk factors for malignancy were older age, larger lesion, and history of smoking. The malignancy rates for women and men were almost identical (53% and 54%, respectively), and the difference was not statistically significant (P = .40).

Diagnosis

Table 2 outlines the distribution of the reviewers’ diagnoses and the distribution of FD. Primary lung cancer was the dominant suspected diagnosis and accounted for 61%, 65%, and 54% of the cases reviewed by the pulmonologist, the radiologist, and FD, respectively. Metastatic disease was a distant second dominant diagnosis (17%, 15%, and 15%, respectively). There was no statistical difference between the reviews of the pulmonologist and radiologist, and the FD (P > .05).

Table 3 lists the κ results for the strength of agreement between pulmonologist and radiologist. Agreement for primary lung cancer was very good: 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-0.99). With respect to group 1, agreement was perfect: 1.0 (95% CI, 1.000-1.000). Benign neoplasm had the weakest agreement. There was no statistical difference between pulmonologist and radiologist determinations across size-based groups.Agreement between pulmonologist and FD was almost perfect. The major discrepancy between the sets of reviewers remained benign neoplasm and infectious/inflammatory etiology.

Of the 111 study patients, 68 (61%) and 72 (65%) were suspected of having primary lung cancer by pulmonologist and radiologist, respectively. However, only 60 (54%) actually had primary lung cancer; the differences were not statistically significant (P = .27 and .1, respectively). No cases were reclassified as primary lung cancer on final pathology.

Infectious/inflammatory etiologies did not always have positive cultures. Those with positive cultures included Streptococcus (S) viridans, Rhodococcus equi, Blastomyces dermatitidis, S constellatus, S anginosus, S intermedius, and Histoplasma capsulatum. Benign neoplasms included radiation injuries, benign fibrous tumor of the pleura, and hamartoma.

Pulmonologists and radiologists had identical high sensitivities for primary lung cancer: 1.0 (95% CI, 0.94-1.00). Specificities were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77-0.84) for pulmonologists and 0.77(95% CI, 0.69-0.77) for radiologists, and the difference was not statistically significant (P = .28) (Table 4).

Discussion

Computed tomography scans are performed to evaluate a variety of diseases. An estimated 7 million CT scans are performed in the U.S. annually.^6,12 As the National Lung Screening Trial recommendations are followed more routinely, almost 9 million peoplecould become candidates, adding to the already large number of CTscans to be evaluated.¹³

Radiologists would understandably read most of these patients’ scans. However, patients referred to tertiary-care centers usually bring CT images with them; even scans performed at UAMS and CAVHS centers may not be read by a radiologist in time for an appointment. The result is that the clinic pulmonologist often must base decisions on a CT reading, but without the assistance of high-fidelity computer programs or a high-definition scan.⁵ These limitations indicate why it is important to know whether assessment by a pulmonologist compares favorably with assessment by a radiologist and with the eventual diagnosis.

The malignancy rate in the referred population is not insignificant. Halbert and colleagues found a 25% malignancy rate in their study,¹² and the present study had an overall malignancy rate of 54%. The difference may be attributed to the possibility that the patients may have been prescreened prior to referral.

The reviewers overestimated the presence of malignant disease, though not to a level of statistical significance. About 88% of cases evaluated by a pulmonologist and 83% of cases evaluated by a radiologist were confirmed to be malignant. The reviewers’ sensitivity was perfect for all diagnoses except benign neoplasms, likely because these cases were classified malignant, thus increasing sensitivity but decreasing specificity.

This dynamic is important to understand, as it allows for a very high negative predictive value, which has real implications for resource management at VA hospitals, including CAVHS facility, where almost every CT scan with an abnormality is referred for pulmonologist consultation. In these cases, the radiologist not only lists the likely suspicion but includes a recommendation for follow-up or further workup based on Fleischner Society guidelines.^4,14 The patient should be informed of findings as soon as the radiologist reads the CT scan, and a plan should be made on the basis of the recommendation. The patient should not have to unnecessarily wait—a potential source of anxiety—to see another specialist who would probably make the same recommendation.

Applying this study’s findings could improve workflow and the timing of CT scans. A patient should not be referred to a pulmonologist unless specifically recommended by a radiologist, thus decreasing the scheduling burden on the specialty clinic and allowing for appropriate patients to be scheduled at reasonable intervals. In addition, having only 1 person in charge of ordering CT scans could reduce the chance of duplicating orders and performing CT scans at inappropriate times.

Most important, these results should lead to more detailed physician–patient discussions about radiologic findings, hopefully alleviating any patient anxiety. A patient who still wants to see a specialist may, but with less stress that can accompany being told that there is “something abnormal” on the imaging and that the patient needs to see a lung doctor.

Limitations

This study had a few weaknesses. It was a small trial, and its data were collected retrospectively. In addition, generalizing its results may be difficult, as its reviewers had less than 5 years of training, and reviewers with more experience likely would be more accurate and have a higher rate of agreement.

Results could have been skewed by the study’s unusually large number of patients with malignant disease. Had the study been conducted with a larger population (patients at primary care offices), accuracy and agreement might have been lower.

Conclusion

This study answered its 2 questions. Although it is universally accepted that pulmonologists can review patients’ scans, to the authors’ knowledge this is the first study that asked, “Are pulmonologists as good as radiologists in reading CT scans?” The answer is yes. Also asked was, “Do pulmonologists’ and radiologists’ diagnoses predict the final path?” The reviewers’ were very accurate except in the case of benign neoplasms.

Experienced pulmonologists and radiologists are consistent in accurately diagnosing malignant lung nodules and lung masses noted on CT scans.

Lung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related deaths, and screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has the potential to decrease the mortality rate of patients by 20%.¹ Most major cancer societies have issued lung cancer screening recommendations. For example, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends annual LDCT scans for high-risk patients (those at moderate or low risk need not be screened). High-risk patients are aged between 55 and 74 years (the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force upper age limit is 80 years) and have a smoking history of ≥ 30 pack-years, or if no longer smoking, a quit date within the past 15 years. Although length of screening needed is unclear, it is advised that patients have annual LDCT scans until they have been smoke free for 15 years, develop limited life expectancy, or are no longer eligible for definitive treatment for lung cancer. A strong antismoking commitment and a multidisciplinary approach are of paramount importance.^2,3

Fleischner Society criteria are the most established guidelines for risk-stratifying pulmonary nodules (Table 1). Nodules are stratified by size and change in size over a 2-year period. There is interest in evaluating change in volume as well, but techniques are still emerging and have not been universally adopted.^4,5

Lung nodule screening likely will require significant involvement of radiologists and pulmonologists in the workup of patients with positive screens. Radiologists have demonstrated a fair amount of interobserver agreement with respect to diagnosis, but there are no data comparing pulmonologists with other pulmonologists or with radiologists.^6-8 In addition, although health care professionals have access to validated models for predicting risk of malignancy, there is evidence they do not use them.^9,10 This study was conducted to determine whether pulmonologists and radiologists experienced in thoracic abnormalities are consistent in accurately diagnosing malignant lung nodules and masses noted on CT scans.

Methods

After obtaining institutional review board approval for this study, the authors evaluated all the lung nodule or lung mass referrals that had been made to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) and Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System (CAVHS) interventional pulmonary clinics between March 2009 and March 2013. Of the 1,512 referrals made, 250 were randomly selected for noncontrasted CT image review and data collection. Each CT image was de-identified and then reviewed by a pulmonologist and a radiologist. The study used 4 reviewers—2 board-certified pulmonologists and 2 board-certified radiologists—all with > 3 years of experience. Both radiologists were thoracic specialists, and no residents or fellows participated. For each case, reviewers were given a brief patient history outlining smoking and other malignancies. Data collected included age, sex, race, exposure to cigarette smoking, and the gold standard of final diagnosis (FD).

In each case, a pulmonologist and a radiologist reviewed the patient’s CT images from the first visit. Reviewers were asked to determine and document the single most likely diagnosis. Diagnoses were grouped into primary lung cancer, metastatic disease, lymphoma, infectious/inflammatory etiology, benign neoplasm, and other (eg, sarcoma). A lesion with a diagnostic biopsy and stability at 2 years was deemed benign. A lesion that was culture-positive or responded rapidly to antibacterial or antifungal therapy was deemed infectious/inflammatory. Lesions were grouped by size: group 1 (≤ 10 mm), group 2 (11-30 mm), group 3 (31-50 mm), group 4 (≥ 51 mm).

Statistical Analyses

Student t tests were used to compare means. Concordance of the pulmonary reviewers and FD was assessed with the κ coefficient. The concordance was also evaluated between the radiology reviewers and FD. These statistical analyses were performed with SAS Version 9.4 (SAS Institute). P values were interpreted using the sliding-scale approach of Mendenhall and colleagues: P < .01 (highly significant); .01 < P < .05 (statistically significant); .05 < P < .10 (trending toward significance); P > .10 (not significant).¹¹

Results

Of the 250 patients selected for the study, 111 had the pertinent data available, along with a follow-up appointment > 2 years afterward at the center. The patients included 40 women and 71 men; 79 white patients, 29 black patients, and 3 patients of other races. Mean age was 58 years (range, 21-93 years).

Risk factors for malignancy were older age, larger lesion, and history of smoking. The malignancy rates for women and men were almost identical (53% and 54%, respectively), and the difference was not statistically significant (P = .40).

Diagnosis

Table 2 outlines the distribution of the reviewers’ diagnoses and the distribution of FD. Primary lung cancer was the dominant suspected diagnosis and accounted for 61%, 65%, and 54% of the cases reviewed by the pulmonologist, the radiologist, and FD, respectively. Metastatic disease was a distant second dominant diagnosis (17%, 15%, and 15%, respectively). There was no statistical difference between the reviews of the pulmonologist and radiologist, and the FD (P > .05).

Table 3 lists the κ results for the strength of agreement between pulmonologist and radiologist. Agreement for primary lung cancer was very good: 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-0.99). With respect to group 1, agreement was perfect: 1.0 (95% CI, 1.000-1.000). Benign neoplasm had the weakest agreement. There was no statistical difference between pulmonologist and radiologist determinations across size-based groups.Agreement between pulmonologist and FD was almost perfect. The major discrepancy between the sets of reviewers remained benign neoplasm and infectious/inflammatory etiology.

Of the 111 study patients, 68 (61%) and 72 (65%) were suspected of having primary lung cancer by pulmonologist and radiologist, respectively. However, only 60 (54%) actually had primary lung cancer; the differences were not statistically significant (P = .27 and .1, respectively). No cases were reclassified as primary lung cancer on final pathology.

Infectious/inflammatory etiologies did not always have positive cultures. Those with positive cultures included Streptococcus (S) viridans, Rhodococcus equi, Blastomyces dermatitidis, S constellatus, S anginosus, S intermedius, and Histoplasma capsulatum. Benign neoplasms included radiation injuries, benign fibrous tumor of the pleura, and hamartoma.

Pulmonologists and radiologists had identical high sensitivities for primary lung cancer: 1.0 (95% CI, 0.94-1.00). Specificities were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77-0.84) for pulmonologists and 0.77(95% CI, 0.69-0.77) for radiologists, and the difference was not statistically significant (P = .28) (Table 4).

Discussion

Computed tomography scans are performed to evaluate a variety of diseases. An estimated 7 million CT scans are performed in the U.S. annually.^6,12 As the National Lung Screening Trial recommendations are followed more routinely, almost 9 million peoplecould become candidates, adding to the already large number of CTscans to be evaluated.¹³

Radiologists would understandably read most of these patients’ scans. However, patients referred to tertiary-care centers usually bring CT images with them; even scans performed at UAMS and CAVHS centers may not be read by a radiologist in time for an appointment. The result is that the clinic pulmonologist often must base decisions on a CT reading, but without the assistance of high-fidelity computer programs or a high-definition scan.⁵ These limitations indicate why it is important to know whether assessment by a pulmonologist compares favorably with assessment by a radiologist and with the eventual diagnosis.

The malignancy rate in the referred population is not insignificant. Halbert and colleagues found a 25% malignancy rate in their study,¹² and the present study had an overall malignancy rate of 54%. The difference may be attributed to the possibility that the patients may have been prescreened prior to referral.

The reviewers overestimated the presence of malignant disease, though not to a level of statistical significance. About 88% of cases evaluated by a pulmonologist and 83% of cases evaluated by a radiologist were confirmed to be malignant. The reviewers’ sensitivity was perfect for all diagnoses except benign neoplasms, likely because these cases were classified malignant, thus increasing sensitivity but decreasing specificity.

This dynamic is important to understand, as it allows for a very high negative predictive value, which has real implications for resource management at VA hospitals, including CAVHS facility, where almost every CT scan with an abnormality is referred for pulmonologist consultation. In these cases, the radiologist not only lists the likely suspicion but includes a recommendation for follow-up or further workup based on Fleischner Society guidelines.^4,14 The patient should be informed of findings as soon as the radiologist reads the CT scan, and a plan should be made on the basis of the recommendation. The patient should not have to unnecessarily wait—a potential source of anxiety—to see another specialist who would probably make the same recommendation.

Applying this study’s findings could improve workflow and the timing of CT scans. A patient should not be referred to a pulmonologist unless specifically recommended by a radiologist, thus decreasing the scheduling burden on the specialty clinic and allowing for appropriate patients to be scheduled at reasonable intervals. In addition, having only 1 person in charge of ordering CT scans could reduce the chance of duplicating orders and performing CT scans at inappropriate times.

Most important, these results should lead to more detailed physician–patient discussions about radiologic findings, hopefully alleviating any patient anxiety. A patient who still wants to see a specialist may, but with less stress that can accompany being told that there is “something abnormal” on the imaging and that the patient needs to see a lung doctor.

Limitations

This study had a few weaknesses. It was a small trial, and its data were collected retrospectively. In addition, generalizing its results may be difficult, as its reviewers had less than 5 years of training, and reviewers with more experience likely would be more accurate and have a higher rate of agreement.

Results could have been skewed by the study’s unusually large number of patients with malignant disease. Had the study been conducted with a larger population (patients at primary care offices), accuracy and agreement might have been lower.

Conclusion

This study answered its 2 questions. Although it is universally accepted that pulmonologists can review patients’ scans, to the authors’ knowledge this is the first study that asked, “Are pulmonologists as good as radiologists in reading CT scans?” The answer is yes. Also asked was, “Do pulmonologists’ and radiologists’ diagnoses predict the final path?” The reviewers’ were very accurate except in the case of benign neoplasms.

Experienced pulmonologists and radiologists are consistent in accurately diagnosing malignant lung nodules and lung masses noted on CT scans.

There is increased anxiety and depression among family caregivers who do not take care of themselves, according to a study to be presented at the 2016 ASCO Palliative Care in Oncology Symposium.

Nearly a quarter of 294 caregivers of Medicare patients with advanced cancer reported high depression scores (23%) and 34% reported borderline or high anxiety scores. Worse caregiver anxiety, depression, and mental health–related quality of life scores were significantly associated with lower scores in every self-care measure (P less than .05 for all). Lower self-care behavior scores were associated with longer durations, higher hours, and more days/week of caregiving and with fair or poor patient health.

The cross-sectional survey was conducted in community settings of eight cancer centers in Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee. The family caregivers of Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with pancreatic, lung, brain, ovarian, head & neck, hematologic, or stage IV cancer completed measures of self-care behaviors, including health responsibility, physical activity, nutrition, spiritual growth, interpersonal relations, stress management, and sleep. Caregivers averaged 66 years and were mostly female (72.8%), white (91.2%), Protestant (76.2%), retired (54.4%), and patients’ spouse/partner (60.2%). Approximately half were rural dwellers (46.9%) and had incomes less than $50,000 (53.8%). The majority provided support 6-7 days per week (71%) for greater than 1 year (68%).

“This research serves as an important call to action for the oncology community to implement support networks and services that care for the caregiver,” ASCO representative Andrew Epstein, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in a written statement ahead of the symposium.

“We hope our research rallies the oncology palliative care communities to develop assessment tools and services that support caregivers,” lead author James Nicholas Dionne-Odom, PhD, RN, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in the statement.

jcraig@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

There is increased anxiety and depression among family caregivers who do not take care of themselves, according to a study to be presented at the 2016 ASCO Palliative Care in Oncology Symposium.

Nearly a quarter of 294 caregivers of Medicare patients with advanced cancer reported high depression scores (23%) and 34% reported borderline or high anxiety scores. Worse caregiver anxiety, depression, and mental health–related quality of life scores were significantly associated with lower scores in every self-care measure (P less than .05 for all). Lower self-care behavior scores were associated with longer durations, higher hours, and more days/week of caregiving and with fair or poor patient health.

The cross-sectional survey was conducted in community settings of eight cancer centers in Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee. The family caregivers of Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with pancreatic, lung, brain, ovarian, head & neck, hematologic, or stage IV cancer completed measures of self-care behaviors, including health responsibility, physical activity, nutrition, spiritual growth, interpersonal relations, stress management, and sleep. Caregivers averaged 66 years and were mostly female (72.8%), white (91.2%), Protestant (76.2%), retired (54.4%), and patients’ spouse/partner (60.2%). Approximately half were rural dwellers (46.9%) and had incomes less than $50,000 (53.8%). The majority provided support 6-7 days per week (71%) for greater than 1 year (68%).

“This research serves as an important call to action for the oncology community to implement support networks and services that care for the caregiver,” ASCO representative Andrew Epstein, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in a written statement ahead of the symposium.

“We hope our research rallies the oncology palliative care communities to develop assessment tools and services that support caregivers,” lead author James Nicholas Dionne-Odom, PhD, RN, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in the statement.

jcraig@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

There is increased anxiety and depression among family caregivers who do not take care of themselves, according to a study to be presented at the 2016 ASCO Palliative Care in Oncology Symposium.

Nearly a quarter of 294 caregivers of Medicare patients with advanced cancer reported high depression scores (23%) and 34% reported borderline or high anxiety scores. Worse caregiver anxiety, depression, and mental health–related quality of life scores were significantly associated with lower scores in every self-care measure (P less than .05 for all). Lower self-care behavior scores were associated with longer durations, higher hours, and more days/week of caregiving and with fair or poor patient health.

The cross-sectional survey was conducted in community settings of eight cancer centers in Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee. The family caregivers of Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with pancreatic, lung, brain, ovarian, head & neck, hematologic, or stage IV cancer completed measures of self-care behaviors, including health responsibility, physical activity, nutrition, spiritual growth, interpersonal relations, stress management, and sleep. Caregivers averaged 66 years and were mostly female (72.8%), white (91.2%), Protestant (76.2%), retired (54.4%), and patients’ spouse/partner (60.2%). Approximately half were rural dwellers (46.9%) and had incomes less than $50,000 (53.8%). The majority provided support 6-7 days per week (71%) for greater than 1 year (68%).

“This research serves as an important call to action for the oncology community to implement support networks and services that care for the caregiver,” ASCO representative Andrew Epstein, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in a written statement ahead of the symposium.

“We hope our research rallies the oncology palliative care communities to develop assessment tools and services that support caregivers,” lead author James Nicholas Dionne-Odom, PhD, RN, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in the statement.

jcraig@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

New anticancer drugs are often expensive and have been accompanied by large increases in the cost of medical treatment, but they also are associated with gains in life expectancy, according to an analysis of Medicare data published online.

Investigators looked at four different types of cancer – breast, kidney, lung, and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) – over two time periods: 1996-2000 and 2007-2011. Patients treated for CML during 2007-2011 had the largest increases in both average lifetime medical cost ($142,000) and months of life gained (22.1) over those treated during 1996-2000, reported David H. Howard, PhD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and his associates.

Breast cancer patients had the next-largest increases: 13.2 months of life expectancy and $72,000 in lifetime medical cost for those who received physician-administered intravenous drugs. For breast cancer patients who received only oral drugs, the increases were 2 months of life and $9,000 in lifetime cost, they noted.

Patients with kidney cancer had an average life-expectancy increase of 7.9 months and a cost increase of $45,000, but those estimates don’t fully reflect the effect of several oral drugs that were introduced after 2007 but did not come into widespread use during the entire study period, Dr. Howard and his associates noted (Health Aff. 2016 Sep 7;35[9]:1581-7).

Lung cancer patients experienced the smallest changes between the two time periods, with an increase in life expectancy of 3.9 months for those who received physician-administered anticancer drugs and a lifetime medical cost increase of $23,000. Patients with lung cancer who did not receive such drugs had increases of 0.7 months of life expectancy and $4,000 in lifetime medical costs.

The researchers used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare database, and all costs are adjusted to 2012 dollars. Data collection was supported by the California Department of Health and funding for the study was provided by Pfizer. Three of Dr. Howard’s five coinvestigators are Pfizer employees.

rfranki@frontlinemedcom.com

New anticancer drugs are often expensive and have been accompanied by large increases in the cost of medical treatment, but they also are associated with gains in life expectancy, according to an analysis of Medicare data published online.

Investigators looked at four different types of cancer – breast, kidney, lung, and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) – over two time periods: 1996-2000 and 2007-2011. Patients treated for CML during 2007-2011 had the largest increases in both average lifetime medical cost ($142,000) and months of life gained (22.1) over those treated during 1996-2000, reported David H. Howard, PhD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and his associates.

Breast cancer patients had the next-largest increases: 13.2 months of life expectancy and $72,000 in lifetime medical cost for those who received physician-administered intravenous drugs. For breast cancer patients who received only oral drugs, the increases were 2 months of life and $9,000 in lifetime cost, they noted.

Patients with kidney cancer had an average life-expectancy increase of 7.9 months and a cost increase of $45,000, but those estimates don’t fully reflect the effect of several oral drugs that were introduced after 2007 but did not come into widespread use during the entire study period, Dr. Howard and his associates noted (Health Aff. 2016 Sep 7;35[9]:1581-7).

Lung cancer patients experienced the smallest changes between the two time periods, with an increase in life expectancy of 3.9 months for those who received physician-administered anticancer drugs and a lifetime medical cost increase of $23,000. Patients with lung cancer who did not receive such drugs had increases of 0.7 months of life expectancy and $4,000 in lifetime medical costs.

The researchers used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare database, and all costs are adjusted to 2012 dollars. Data collection was supported by the California Department of Health and funding for the study was provided by Pfizer. Three of Dr. Howard’s five coinvestigators are Pfizer employees.

rfranki@frontlinemedcom.com

New anticancer drugs are often expensive and have been accompanied by large increases in the cost of medical treatment, but they also are associated with gains in life expectancy, according to an analysis of Medicare data published online.

Investigators looked at four different types of cancer – breast, kidney, lung, and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) – over two time periods: 1996-2000 and 2007-2011. Patients treated for CML during 2007-2011 had the largest increases in both average lifetime medical cost ($142,000) and months of life gained (22.1) over those treated during 1996-2000, reported David H. Howard, PhD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and his associates.

Breast cancer patients had the next-largest increases: 13.2 months of life expectancy and $72,000 in lifetime medical cost for those who received physician-administered intravenous drugs. For breast cancer patients who received only oral drugs, the increases were 2 months of life and $9,000 in lifetime cost, they noted.

Patients with kidney cancer had an average life-expectancy increase of 7.9 months and a cost increase of $45,000, but those estimates don’t fully reflect the effect of several oral drugs that were introduced after 2007 but did not come into widespread use during the entire study period, Dr. Howard and his associates noted (Health Aff. 2016 Sep 7;35[9]:1581-7).

Lung cancer patients experienced the smallest changes between the two time periods, with an increase in life expectancy of 3.9 months for those who received physician-administered anticancer drugs and a lifetime medical cost increase of $23,000. Patients with lung cancer who did not receive such drugs had increases of 0.7 months of life expectancy and $4,000 in lifetime medical costs.

The researchers used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare database, and all costs are adjusted to 2012 dollars. Data collection was supported by the California Department of Health and funding for the study was provided by Pfizer. Three of Dr. Howard’s five coinvestigators are Pfizer employees.

rfranki@frontlinemedcom.com

Whole brain radiotherapy, a standard treatment for patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer, provided no clinical benefit in a noninferiority trial specifically designed to assess both patient survival and quality of life.

The findings were published online Sept. 4 in the Lancet.

Whole brain radiotherapy, with or without concomitant steroid treatment, has been widely used for decades in that patient population, even though no sufficiently powered, definitive studies support the approach. It is likely that patients and clinicians alike continue to embrace it because of the absence of alternative treatment options.

The Quality of Life After Treatment for Brain Metastases (QUARTZ) trial was intended to assess whether any improvement in survival offered by whole brain radiotherapy is balanced by deterioration in quality of life, said Paula Mulvenna, MBBS, of the Northern Center for Cancer Care, Newcastle (England) Hospitals, and her associates (Lancet 2016 Sep 4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30825-X).

QUARTZ involved 538 adults seen during a 7-year period who had NSCLC with brain metastases and who were not suited for either brain surgery or stereotactic radiotherapy. The median age was 66 years (range, 35-85 years), and 38% had a Karnofsky Performance Status score of less than 70.

The participants were randomly assigned to receive either optimal supportive care plus whole brain radiotherapy (269 patients) or optimal supportive care alone (269 patients) at 69 U.K. and 3 Australian medical centers. They reported on 20 symptoms and adverse effects, as well as health-related quality of life, approximately once per week.

The primary outcome measure – quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), which combines overall survival and quality of life – was 46.4 days with radiotherapy and 41.7 days without it.

Symptoms, adverse effects, and quality of life (QOL) were similar between the two study groups at 4 weeks, except that the radiotherapy group reported more moderate or severe episodes of drowsiness, hair loss, nausea, and dry or itchy scalp. The number and severity of serious adverse events were similar through 12 weeks of follow-up.

The percentage of patients whose QOL was either maintained or improved over time was similar between the two groups at 4 weeks (54% vs. 57%), 8 weeks (44% vs. 51%), and 12 weeks (44% vs. 49%). Changes in Karnofsky scores also were similar.

The study refuted the widely held belief that whole brain radiotherapy allows patients to reduce or discontinue steroid treatment, averting the associated adverse effects. Steroid doses were not significantly different between the two study groups through the first 8 weeks of treatment, which “challenges the dogma that whole brain radiotherapy can be seen as a steroid-sparing modality,” the investigators said.

Taken together, the findings “suggest that whole brain radiotherapy can be omitted and patients treated with optimal supportive care alone, without an important reduction in either overall survival or quality of life,” Dr. Mulvenna and her associates said.

The approximately 5-day difference between the two study groups in median overall survival highlights both the limited benefit offered by radiotherapy and the poor prognosis of this patient population, the researchers added.

Whole brain radiotherapy did offer a small survival benefit to the youngest patients who had good performance status and a “controlled” primary NSCLC. “For all other groups, [it] does not significantly affect QALY or overall survival,” they said.

Cancer Research U.K., the Medical Research Council in the U.K., the Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, and the National Health and Medical Research Council Australia supported the study. Dr. Mulvenna and her associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Whole brain radiotherapy, a standard treatment for patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer, provided no clinical benefit in a noninferiority trial specifically designed to assess both patient survival and quality of life.

The findings were published online Sept. 4 in the Lancet.

Whole brain radiotherapy, with or without concomitant steroid treatment, has been widely used for decades in that patient population, even though no sufficiently powered, definitive studies support the approach. It is likely that patients and clinicians alike continue to embrace it because of the absence of alternative treatment options.

The Quality of Life After Treatment for Brain Metastases (QUARTZ) trial was intended to assess whether any improvement in survival offered by whole brain radiotherapy is balanced by deterioration in quality of life, said Paula Mulvenna, MBBS, of the Northern Center for Cancer Care, Newcastle (England) Hospitals, and her associates (Lancet 2016 Sep 4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30825-X).

QUARTZ involved 538 adults seen during a 7-year period who had NSCLC with brain metastases and who were not suited for either brain surgery or stereotactic radiotherapy. The median age was 66 years (range, 35-85 years), and 38% had a Karnofsky Performance Status score of less than 70.

The participants were randomly assigned to receive either optimal supportive care plus whole brain radiotherapy (269 patients) or optimal supportive care alone (269 patients) at 69 U.K. and 3 Australian medical centers. They reported on 20 symptoms and adverse effects, as well as health-related quality of life, approximately once per week.

The primary outcome measure – quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), which combines overall survival and quality of life – was 46.4 days with radiotherapy and 41.7 days without it.

Symptoms, adverse effects, and quality of life (QOL) were similar between the two study groups at 4 weeks, except that the radiotherapy group reported more moderate or severe episodes of drowsiness, hair loss, nausea, and dry or itchy scalp. The number and severity of serious adverse events were similar through 12 weeks of follow-up.

The percentage of patients whose QOL was either maintained or improved over time was similar between the two groups at 4 weeks (54% vs. 57%), 8 weeks (44% vs. 51%), and 12 weeks (44% vs. 49%). Changes in Karnofsky scores also were similar.

The study refuted the widely held belief that whole brain radiotherapy allows patients to reduce or discontinue steroid treatment, averting the associated adverse effects. Steroid doses were not significantly different between the two study groups through the first 8 weeks of treatment, which “challenges the dogma that whole brain radiotherapy can be seen as a steroid-sparing modality,” the investigators said.

Taken together, the findings “suggest that whole brain radiotherapy can be omitted and patients treated with optimal supportive care alone, without an important reduction in either overall survival or quality of life,” Dr. Mulvenna and her associates said.

The approximately 5-day difference between the two study groups in median overall survival highlights both the limited benefit offered by radiotherapy and the poor prognosis of this patient population, the researchers added.

Whole brain radiotherapy did offer a small survival benefit to the youngest patients who had good performance status and a “controlled” primary NSCLC. “For all other groups, [it] does not significantly affect QALY or overall survival,” they said.

Cancer Research U.K., the Medical Research Council in the U.K., the Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, and the National Health and Medical Research Council Australia supported the study. Dr. Mulvenna and her associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Whole brain radiotherapy, a standard treatment for patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer, provided no clinical benefit in a noninferiority trial specifically designed to assess both patient survival and quality of life.

The findings were published online Sept. 4 in the Lancet.

Whole brain radiotherapy, with or without concomitant steroid treatment, has been widely used for decades in that patient population, even though no sufficiently powered, definitive studies support the approach. It is likely that patients and clinicians alike continue to embrace it because of the absence of alternative treatment options.

The Quality of Life After Treatment for Brain Metastases (QUARTZ) trial was intended to assess whether any improvement in survival offered by whole brain radiotherapy is balanced by deterioration in quality of life, said Paula Mulvenna, MBBS, of the Northern Center for Cancer Care, Newcastle (England) Hospitals, and her associates (Lancet 2016 Sep 4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30825-X).

QUARTZ involved 538 adults seen during a 7-year period who had NSCLC with brain metastases and who were not suited for either brain surgery or stereotactic radiotherapy. The median age was 66 years (range, 35-85 years), and 38% had a Karnofsky Performance Status score of less than 70.

The participants were randomly assigned to receive either optimal supportive care plus whole brain radiotherapy (269 patients) or optimal supportive care alone (269 patients) at 69 U.K. and 3 Australian medical centers. They reported on 20 symptoms and adverse effects, as well as health-related quality of life, approximately once per week.

The primary outcome measure – quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), which combines overall survival and quality of life – was 46.4 days with radiotherapy and 41.7 days without it.

Symptoms, adverse effects, and quality of life (QOL) were similar between the two study groups at 4 weeks, except that the radiotherapy group reported more moderate or severe episodes of drowsiness, hair loss, nausea, and dry or itchy scalp. The number and severity of serious adverse events were similar through 12 weeks of follow-up.

The percentage of patients whose QOL was either maintained or improved over time was similar between the two groups at 4 weeks (54% vs. 57%), 8 weeks (44% vs. 51%), and 12 weeks (44% vs. 49%). Changes in Karnofsky scores also were similar.

The study refuted the widely held belief that whole brain radiotherapy allows patients to reduce or discontinue steroid treatment, averting the associated adverse effects. Steroid doses were not significantly different between the two study groups through the first 8 weeks of treatment, which “challenges the dogma that whole brain radiotherapy can be seen as a steroid-sparing modality,” the investigators said.

Taken together, the findings “suggest that whole brain radiotherapy can be omitted and patients treated with optimal supportive care alone, without an important reduction in either overall survival or quality of life,” Dr. Mulvenna and her associates said.

The approximately 5-day difference between the two study groups in median overall survival highlights both the limited benefit offered by radiotherapy and the poor prognosis of this patient population, the researchers added.

Whole brain radiotherapy did offer a small survival benefit to the youngest patients who had good performance status and a “controlled” primary NSCLC. “For all other groups, [it] does not significantly affect QALY or overall survival,” they said.

Cancer Research U.K., the Medical Research Council in the U.K., the Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, and the National Health and Medical Research Council Australia supported the study. Dr. Mulvenna and her associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

A study of cancer patients enrolled in trials of the programmed cell death-1 inhibiting medicine nivolumab found that among a minority who developed pneumonitis during treatment, distinct radiographic patterns were significantly associated with the level of pneumonitis severity.

Investigators found that cryptic organizing pneumonia pattern (COP) was the most common, though not the most severe. Led by Mizuki Nishino, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, the researchers looked at the 20 patients out of a cohort of 170 (11.8%) who had developed pneumonitis, and found that radiologic patterns indicating acute interstitial pneumonia/acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 2) had the highest severity grade on a scale of 1-5 (median 3), followed by those with COP pattern (n = 13, median grade 2), hypersensitivity pneumonitis (n = 2, median grade 1), and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (n = 3, median grade 1). The pattern was significantly associated with severity (P = .0006).

The study cohort included patients being treated with nivolumab for lung cancer, melanoma, and lymphoma; the COP patten was the most common across tumor types and observed in patients receiving monotherapy and combination therapy alike. Therapy with nivolumab was suspended for all 20 pneumonitis patients, and most (n = 17) received treatment for pneumonitis with corticosteroids with or without infliximab, for a median treatment time of 6 weeks. Seven patients were able to restart nivolumab, though pneumonitis recurred in two, the investigators reported (Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Aug 17. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-1320).

“Time from initiation of therapy to the development of pneumonitis had a wide range (0.5-11.5 months), indicating an importance of careful observation and follow-up for signs and symptoms of pneumonitis throughout treatment,” Dr. Nishino and colleagues wrote in their analysis, adding that shorter times were observed for lung cancer patients, possibly because of their higher pulmonary burden, a lower threshold for performing chest scans in these patients, or both. “In most patients, clinical and radiographic improvements were noted after treatment, indicating that [PD-1 inhibitor-related pneumonitis], although potentially serious, is treatable if diagnosed and managed appropriately. The observation emphasizes the importance of timely recognition, accurate diagnosis, and early intervention.”

The lead author and several coauthors disclosed funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, which sponsored the trial, as well as from other manufacturers.

A study of cancer patients enrolled in trials of the programmed cell death-1 inhibiting medicine nivolumab found that among a minority who developed pneumonitis during treatment, distinct radiographic patterns were significantly associated with the level of pneumonitis severity.

Investigators found that cryptic organizing pneumonia pattern (COP) was the most common, though not the most severe. Led by Mizuki Nishino, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, the researchers looked at the 20 patients out of a cohort of 170 (11.8%) who had developed pneumonitis, and found that radiologic patterns indicating acute interstitial pneumonia/acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 2) had the highest severity grade on a scale of 1-5 (median 3), followed by those with COP pattern (n = 13, median grade 2), hypersensitivity pneumonitis (n = 2, median grade 1), and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (n = 3, median grade 1). The pattern was significantly associated with severity (P = .0006).

The study cohort included patients being treated with nivolumab for lung cancer, melanoma, and lymphoma; the COP patten was the most common across tumor types and observed in patients receiving monotherapy and combination therapy alike. Therapy with nivolumab was suspended for all 20 pneumonitis patients, and most (n = 17) received treatment for pneumonitis with corticosteroids with or without infliximab, for a median treatment time of 6 weeks. Seven patients were able to restart nivolumab, though pneumonitis recurred in two, the investigators reported (Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Aug 17. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-1320).

“Time from initiation of therapy to the development of pneumonitis had a wide range (0.5-11.5 months), indicating an importance of careful observation and follow-up for signs and symptoms of pneumonitis throughout treatment,” Dr. Nishino and colleagues wrote in their analysis, adding that shorter times were observed for lung cancer patients, possibly because of their higher pulmonary burden, a lower threshold for performing chest scans in these patients, or both. “In most patients, clinical and radiographic improvements were noted after treatment, indicating that [PD-1 inhibitor-related pneumonitis], although potentially serious, is treatable if diagnosed and managed appropriately. The observation emphasizes the importance of timely recognition, accurate diagnosis, and early intervention.”

The lead author and several coauthors disclosed funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, which sponsored the trial, as well as from other manufacturers.

A study of cancer patients enrolled in trials of the programmed cell death-1 inhibiting medicine nivolumab found that among a minority who developed pneumonitis during treatment, distinct radiographic patterns were significantly associated with the level of pneumonitis severity.

Investigators found that cryptic organizing pneumonia pattern (COP) was the most common, though not the most severe. Led by Mizuki Nishino, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, the researchers looked at the 20 patients out of a cohort of 170 (11.8%) who had developed pneumonitis, and found that radiologic patterns indicating acute interstitial pneumonia/acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 2) had the highest severity grade on a scale of 1-5 (median 3), followed by those with COP pattern (n = 13, median grade 2), hypersensitivity pneumonitis (n = 2, median grade 1), and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (n = 3, median grade 1). The pattern was significantly associated with severity (P = .0006).

The study cohort included patients being treated with nivolumab for lung cancer, melanoma, and lymphoma; the COP patten was the most common across tumor types and observed in patients receiving monotherapy and combination therapy alike. Therapy with nivolumab was suspended for all 20 pneumonitis patients, and most (n = 17) received treatment for pneumonitis with corticosteroids with or without infliximab, for a median treatment time of 6 weeks. Seven patients were able to restart nivolumab, though pneumonitis recurred in two, the investigators reported (Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Aug 17. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-1320).

“Time from initiation of therapy to the development of pneumonitis had a wide range (0.5-11.5 months), indicating an importance of careful observation and follow-up for signs and symptoms of pneumonitis throughout treatment,” Dr. Nishino and colleagues wrote in their analysis, adding that shorter times were observed for lung cancer patients, possibly because of their higher pulmonary burden, a lower threshold for performing chest scans in these patients, or both. “In most patients, clinical and radiographic improvements were noted after treatment, indicating that [PD-1 inhibitor-related pneumonitis], although potentially serious, is treatable if diagnosed and managed appropriately. The observation emphasizes the importance of timely recognition, accurate diagnosis, and early intervention.”

The lead author and several coauthors disclosed funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, which sponsored the trial, as well as from other manufacturers.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the world, with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) a significant component of those deaths.1,2 Treatments for advanced-stage NSCLC, however, are limited. Erlotinib, a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), has aided in advancing NSCLC therapy. Erlotinib has been shown to increase survival by 2 months compared with placebo in a phase 3, randomized controlled trial when used as second- or third-line therapy.3 The authors present a case of a man surviving almost 8 years with late-stage NSCLC on treatment with erlotinib at the VA West Los Angeles Medical Center (WLAMC).

Click here continue to reading.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the world, with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) a significant component of those deaths.1,2 Treatments for advanced-stage NSCLC, however, are limited. Erlotinib, a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), has aided in advancing NSCLC therapy. Erlotinib has been shown to increase survival by 2 months compared with placebo in a phase 3, randomized controlled trial when used as second- or third-line therapy.3 The authors present a case of a man surviving almost 8 years with late-stage NSCLC on treatment with erlotinib at the VA West Los Angeles Medical Center (WLAMC).

Click here continue to reading.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the world, with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) a significant component of those deaths.1,2 Treatments for advanced-stage NSCLC, however, are limited. Erlotinib, a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), has aided in advancing NSCLC therapy. Erlotinib has been shown to increase survival by 2 months compared with placebo in a phase 3, randomized controlled trial when used as second- or third-line therapy.3 The authors present a case of a man surviving almost 8 years with late-stage NSCLC on treatment with erlotinib at the VA West Los Angeles Medical Center (WLAMC).

Click here continue to reading.

DURBAN, SOUTH AFRICA – The rates of the AIDS-defining cancers Kaposi’s sarcoma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma have plummeted in the antiretroviral era, yet they are still the two top cancers in terms of cumulative incidence in HIV-infected patients by age 75, Benigno Rodriguez, MD, said at the 21st International AIDS Conference.

Lung cancer also remains a major concern in the HIV-infected population. Each of these three cancers carries about a 1 in 25 lifetime risk to age 75, the estimated lifespan of HIV-positive patients on combination antiretroviral therapy (ART), according to Dr. Rodriguez of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

ART has resulted in a marked change in cancer trends among HIV-infected patients. The incidence of AIDS-defining cancers has decreased “massively,” Dr. Rodriguez observed; but because ART has extended the lifespan, patients are now living long enough to get other cancers. And they do so at a higher rate than that of the general population because of their impaired immune function, higher rate of risk factors such as smoking, and greater prevalence of oncogenic viral coinfections such as hepatitis B and C and Epstein-Barr virus.

The increase in the incidence and risk of colorectal, liver, and anal cancers among HIV-positive individuals since the introduction of combination ART can largely be explained by the population’s longer exposure to risk due to increasing survival, he said.

Dr. Rodriguez presented highlights of an analysis of cancer trends in North America during 1996-2009. The study was based on 86,620 HIV-infected persons with 475,660 person-years of follow-up and 196,987 subjects without HIV infection and with more than 1.8 million person-years of follow-up. Trends over time were assessed for nine cancers: Kaposi’s sarcoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and melanoma, as well as anal, lung, colorectal, liver, and oropharyngeal cancers (Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:507-18).

Examining trends in three periods – 1996-1999, 2000-2004, and 2005-2009 – the investigators looked at the impact of ART over time on rates of AIDS-related and non–AIDS-related cancers in HIV-infected patients and compared them to results in the general HIV-uninfected population.

By conducting a competing risk analysis, Dr. Rodriguez and his coworkers were able to estimate the cumulative lifetime risk of the various cancers by age 75, a metric that provides readily understandable information for counseling HIV-infected patients about their long-term cancer risk.

The measure “is more intuitive than using incidence rates,” Dr. Rodriguez said. In a study of 1,578 HIV-infected patients who received the hepatitis B vaccine, for example, those patients whose immune function did not to respond to the vaccine were more likely to be among the 6% of patients who subsequently developed cancer during up to 20 years of follow-up.

The findings on cancer trends in the ART era have clinical implications for cancer screening and prevention in HIV-infected patients. The high rates of smoking and lung cancer in this population make HIV-positive smokers a logical target for lung cancer screening. The rising risk of colorectal cancer – the cumulative lifetime risk to age 75 was 0.4% in 1996-1999, 0.7% in 2000-2004, and 1.3% in 2005-2009 – suggests a need for increased colorectal cancer screening in the older HIV-positive population.

Early and sustained HIV suppression with combination ART remains the only known method of preventing AIDS-defining cancers. Dr. Rodriguez and his coinvestigators in the Centers for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems demonstrated the crucial role of suppressing HIV in a study of 6,036 HIV-infected patients who started on ART and were followed for more than 21,000 person-years. Compared with HIV-infected patients with a 3-month lagged HIV viremia of no more than 50 copies/mL, patients’ risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was 2.1-fold greater if their 3-month lagged HIV viremia was 51-500 copies/mL and 3.56-fold greater if it exceeded 500 copies/mL (Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Jun;58[11]:1599-606).

The study on cancer trends over time was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Rodriguez reported receiving honoraria from Gilead Sciences.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

DURBAN, SOUTH AFRICA – The rates of the AIDS-defining cancers Kaposi’s sarcoma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma have plummeted in the antiretroviral era, yet they are still the two top cancers in terms of cumulative incidence in HIV-infected patients by age 75, Benigno Rodriguez, MD, said at the 21st International AIDS Conference.

Lung cancer also remains a major concern in the HIV-infected population. Each of these three cancers carries about a 1 in 25 lifetime risk to age 75, the estimated lifespan of HIV-positive patients on combination antiretroviral therapy (ART), according to Dr. Rodriguez of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

ART has resulted in a marked change in cancer trends among HIV-infected patients. The incidence of AIDS-defining cancers has decreased “massively,” Dr. Rodriguez observed; but because ART has extended the lifespan, patients are now living long enough to get other cancers. And they do so at a higher rate than that of the general population because of their impaired immune function, higher rate of risk factors such as smoking, and greater prevalence of oncogenic viral coinfections such as hepatitis B and C and Epstein-Barr virus.

The increase in the incidence and risk of colorectal, liver, and anal cancers among HIV-positive individuals since the introduction of combination ART can largely be explained by the population’s longer exposure to risk due to increasing survival, he said.

Dr. Rodriguez presented highlights of an analysis of cancer trends in North America during 1996-2009. The study was based on 86,620 HIV-infected persons with 475,660 person-years of follow-up and 196,987 subjects without HIV infection and with more than 1.8 million person-years of follow-up. Trends over time were assessed for nine cancers: Kaposi’s sarcoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and melanoma, as well as anal, lung, colorectal, liver, and oropharyngeal cancers (Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:507-18).

Examining trends in three periods – 1996-1999, 2000-2004, and 2005-2009 – the investigators looked at the impact of ART over time on rates of AIDS-related and non–AIDS-related cancers in HIV-infected patients and compared them to results in the general HIV-uninfected population.

By conducting a competing risk analysis, Dr. Rodriguez and his coworkers were able to estimate the cumulative lifetime risk of the various cancers by age 75, a metric that provides readily understandable information for counseling HIV-infected patients about their long-term cancer risk.

The measure “is more intuitive than using incidence rates,” Dr. Rodriguez said. In a study of 1,578 HIV-infected patients who received the hepatitis B vaccine, for example, those patients whose immune function did not to respond to the vaccine were more likely to be among the 6% of patients who subsequently developed cancer during up to 20 years of follow-up.

The findings on cancer trends in the ART era have clinical implications for cancer screening and prevention in HIV-infected patients. The high rates of smoking and lung cancer in this population make HIV-positive smokers a logical target for lung cancer screening. The rising risk of colorectal cancer – the cumulative lifetime risk to age 75 was 0.4% in 1996-1999, 0.7% in 2000-2004, and 1.3% in 2005-2009 – suggests a need for increased colorectal cancer screening in the older HIV-positive population.

Early and sustained HIV suppression with combination ART remains the only known method of preventing AIDS-defining cancers. Dr. Rodriguez and his coinvestigators in the Centers for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems demonstrated the crucial role of suppressing HIV in a study of 6,036 HIV-infected patients who started on ART and were followed for more than 21,000 person-years. Compared with HIV-infected patients with a 3-month lagged HIV viremia of no more than 50 copies/mL, patients’ risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was 2.1-fold greater if their 3-month lagged HIV viremia was 51-500 copies/mL and 3.56-fold greater if it exceeded 500 copies/mL (Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Jun;58[11]:1599-606).

The study on cancer trends over time was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Rodriguez reported receiving honoraria from Gilead Sciences.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

DURBAN, SOUTH AFRICA – The rates of the AIDS-defining cancers Kaposi’s sarcoma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma have plummeted in the antiretroviral era, yet they are still the two top cancers in terms of cumulative incidence in HIV-infected patients by age 75, Benigno Rodriguez, MD, said at the 21st International AIDS Conference.

Lung cancer also remains a major concern in the HIV-infected population. Each of these three cancers carries about a 1 in 25 lifetime risk to age 75, the estimated lifespan of HIV-positive patients on combination antiretroviral therapy (ART), according to Dr. Rodriguez of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

ART has resulted in a marked change in cancer trends among HIV-infected patients. The incidence of AIDS-defining cancers has decreased “massively,” Dr. Rodriguez observed; but because ART has extended the lifespan, patients are now living long enough to get other cancers. And they do so at a higher rate than that of the general population because of their impaired immune function, higher rate of risk factors such as smoking, and greater prevalence of oncogenic viral coinfections such as hepatitis B and C and Epstein-Barr virus.

The increase in the incidence and risk of colorectal, liver, and anal cancers among HIV-positive individuals since the introduction of combination ART can largely be explained by the population’s longer exposure to risk due to increasing survival, he said.

Dr. Rodriguez presented highlights of an analysis of cancer trends in North America during 1996-2009. The study was based on 86,620 HIV-infected persons with 475,660 person-years of follow-up and 196,987 subjects without HIV infection and with more than 1.8 million person-years of follow-up. Trends over time were assessed for nine cancers: Kaposi’s sarcoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and melanoma, as well as anal, lung, colorectal, liver, and oropharyngeal cancers (Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:507-18).

Examining trends in three periods – 1996-1999, 2000-2004, and 2005-2009 – the investigators looked at the impact of ART over time on rates of AIDS-related and non–AIDS-related cancers in HIV-infected patients and compared them to results in the general HIV-uninfected population.

By conducting a competing risk analysis, Dr. Rodriguez and his coworkers were able to estimate the cumulative lifetime risk of the various cancers by age 75, a metric that provides readily understandable information for counseling HIV-infected patients about their long-term cancer risk.

The measure “is more intuitive than using incidence rates,” Dr. Rodriguez said. In a study of 1,578 HIV-infected patients who received the hepatitis B vaccine, for example, those patients whose immune function did not to respond to the vaccine were more likely to be among the 6% of patients who subsequently developed cancer during up to 20 years of follow-up.

The findings on cancer trends in the ART era have clinical implications for cancer screening and prevention in HIV-infected patients. The high rates of smoking and lung cancer in this population make HIV-positive smokers a logical target for lung cancer screening. The rising risk of colorectal cancer – the cumulative lifetime risk to age 75 was 0.4% in 1996-1999, 0.7% in 2000-2004, and 1.3% in 2005-2009 – suggests a need for increased colorectal cancer screening in the older HIV-positive population.

Early and sustained HIV suppression with combination ART remains the only known method of preventing AIDS-defining cancers. Dr. Rodriguez and his coinvestigators in the Centers for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems demonstrated the crucial role of suppressing HIV in a study of 6,036 HIV-infected patients who started on ART and were followed for more than 21,000 person-years. Compared with HIV-infected patients with a 3-month lagged HIV viremia of no more than 50 copies/mL, patients’ risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was 2.1-fold greater if their 3-month lagged HIV viremia was 51-500 copies/mL and 3.56-fold greater if it exceeded 500 copies/mL (Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Jun;58[11]:1599-606).

The study on cancer trends over time was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Rodriguez reported receiving honoraria from Gilead Sciences.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com