Annual or biennial CT screening versus observation in heavy smokers: 5-year results of the MILD trial

Unit of Thoracic Surgery, Foundation IRCCS National Cancer Institute of Milan, Via Venezian 1, Milan, Italy.
European journal of cancer prevention: the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) (Impact Factor: 2.76). 05/2012; 21(3):308-15. DOI: 10.1097/CEJ.0b013e328351e1b6
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of low-dose spiral computed tomography (LDCT) screening in heavy smokers is currently under evaluation worldwide. Our screening program started with a pilot study on 1035 volunteers in Milan in 2000 and was followed up in 2005 by a randomized trial comparing annual or biennial LDCT with observation, named Multicentric Italian Lung Detection. This included 4099 participants, 1723 randomized to the control group, 1186 to biennial LDCT screening, and 1190 to annual LDCT screening. Follow-up was stopped in November 2011, with 9901 person-years for the pilot study and 17 621 person-years for Multicentric Italian Lung Detection. Forty-nine lung cancers were detected by LDCT (20 in biennial and 29 in the annual arm), of which 17 were identified at baseline examination; 63% were of stage I and 84% were surgically resectable. Stage distribution and resection rates were similar in the two LDCT arms. The cumulative 5-year lung cancer incidence rate was 311/100 000 in the control group, 457 in the biennial, and 620 in the annual LDCT group (P=0.036); lung cancer mortality rates were 109, 109, and 216/100 000 (P=0.21), and total mortality rates were 310, 363, and 558/100 000, respectively (P=0.13). Total mortality in the pilot study was similar to that observed in the annual LDCT arm at 5 years. There was no evidence of a protective effect of annual or biennial LDCT screening. Furthermore, a meta-analysis of the four published randomized trials showed similar overall mortality in the LDCT arms compared with the control arm.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lung cancer screening is a subject of considerable interest in the medical community and the general population. Since the publication of the data from the national lung screening trial (NLST) in 2011, the interest in lung cancer screening has increased even more. Data from many sources provide evidence that low-dose computed tomography (LD-CT) lung cancer screening can be performed with even greater efficacy if inclusion criteria as well as nodule management are optimized. There are, however, also a number of potential hurdles for the implementation of lung cancer screening. Among these are, in particular, the high prevalence of screen-detected pulmonary nodules, the unknown extent of over-diagnosis, the potential harms of the cumulative radiation dose and the insufficient data on cost-efficiency of lung cancer screening. In this article, the most recent insights into some of the most imminent questions are reviewed to provide an understanding of the challenges we still face in lung cancer screening.
    10/2014; 3(5):286-90. DOI:10.3978/j.issn.2218-6751.2014.09.11
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Notwithstanding the encouraging results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) the scientific community still debates on the cost-benefit profile of low dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening. Several major concerns regard how to identify subjects at high risk of developing lung cancer, the optimal diagnostic algorithm, the management of lung nodules and the high false positive rates. The use of complementary biomarkers would be a useful strategy for dealing with most of these issues. This short review will focus on candidates' biomarkers circulating in serum or plasma that already reached an advanced validation phase also in LDCT lung cancer screening series. The biomarkers presented below are examples of the value of searching candidates by looking not only to the tumor itself but also to the interplay between the tumor and the host in order to identify early changes related to the biological reactivity of the host to a developing cancer.
    06/2014; 3(3):139-48. DOI:10.3978/j.issn.2218-6751.2014.06.04
  • Seminars in Roentgenology 04/2015; 50(2):82-87. DOI:10.1053/ · 1.18 Impact Factor