Skip to content
naulon

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 16, 2026.

Progress and prospects of early detection in lung cancer

Sean Blandin Knight, Phil A. Crosbie, Haval Balata and 3 more

Open Biology · 2017 · Review · CC BY

doi:10.1098/rsob.170070

Abstract

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the world. It is broadly divided into small cell (SCLC, approx. 15% cases) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC, approx. 85% cases). The main histological subtypes of NSCLC are adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, with the presence of specific DNA mutations allowing further molecular stratification. If identified at an early stage, surgical resection of NSCLC offers a favourable prognosis, with published case series reporting 5-year survival rates of up to 70% for small, localized tumours (stage I). However, most patients (approx. 75%) have advanced disease at the time of diagnosis (stage III/IV) and despite significant developments in the oncological management of late stage lung cancer over recent years, survival remains poor. In 2014, the UK Office for National Statistics reported that patients diagnosed with distant metastatic disease (stage IV) had a 1-year survival rate of just 15–19% compared with 81–85% for stage I.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 16, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the world. It is broadly divided into small cell (SCLC, approx. 15% cases) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC, approx. 85% cases). The main histological subtypes of NSCLC are adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, with the presence of specific DNA mutations allowing further molecular stratification. If identified at an early stage, surgical resection of NSCLC offers a favourable prognosis, with 5-year survival rates of 70–90% for small, localized tumours (stage I). However, most patients (approx. 75%) have advanced disease at the time of diagnosis (stage III/IV) and despite significant developments in the oncological management of late stage lung cancer over recent years, survival remains poor. In 2014, the UK Office for National Statistics reported that patients diagnosed with distant metastatic disease (stage IV) had a 1-year survival rate of just 15–19% compared with 81–85% for stage I.

SCLC is more aggressive than NSCLC, with a prognosis that is even worse—overall 5-year survival is around 5%. Early dissemination is characteristic and consequently more than 90% of patients present with locally advanced or distant metastatic disease (stage III/IV). The window for radical treatment is narrow, but on the rare occasion patients are identified with stage I disease, surgery still appears to be beneficial. One study reported 5-year survival rates of 40% for resection alone and 52% with adjuvant chemotherapy/radiotherapy. A recent propensity-matched analysis compared surgery combined with chemotherapy and radiotherapy to chemotherapy and radiotherapy alone for stage I SCLC, and found significant improvement in survival in those who had surgery. Hence, for both SCLC and NSCLC there is a clear rationale for detection of early stage disease. This review will summarize current clinical and experimental studies to highlight progress as well as some of the challenges in early detection of lung cancer. There are many possible means of early detection of lung cancer and those discussed here are non-exhaustive.

Biology of early lung cancer

A potential additional avenue for early disease biomarker discovery may lie in understanding the changes in the lung environment itself during the initial stages of cancer development. The lung is continually exposed to the external environment and functions under extreme changes in local pressure during the ventilation process. As such, it has evolved into a highly specialized structure. The branching conducting airways are lined with a complex, pseudostratified epithelium composed predominantly of ciliated cells, but also containing various rare populations of secretory cells that are capable of serving as progenitor cells during airway repair following injury. In contrast to the complexity of the conducting airways, the alveoli are lined with only two cell types—squamous type I alveolar epithelial cells, which account for approximately 90% of alveolar coverage and are responsible for capillary interaction, and cuboidal type II alveolar epithelial cells, which are responsible for secreting lipids and proteins that reduce surface tension during ventilation, and may also act as type I cell precursors during alveolar repair.

The results of lineage tracing experiments point, not unreasonably, to cells responsible for airway repair as the initiating cells of tumours in the lung. Although the cell of origin of human SCLC is yet to be formally identified, the expression of neuroendocrine markers, along with data obtained from mouse models, point to neuroendocrine cells (one of the rare secretory cell populations in the conducting airways) as the starting point for SCLC. In the case of NSCLC, the major cell of origin for Kras-driven adenocarcinomas is in the alveoli, namely alveolar type II epithelial cells, while the cell of origin for squamous cell carcinoma is yet to be confirmed.

The association between the presence of chronic, unresolved inflammation and the increased risk of cancer development is well described. Although only approximately 20% of cancers are related to chronic inflammation, innate immune cells and mediators are found in the majority of human malignancies. One of the reasons for this is the induction of inflammatory pathways in both pre-malignant and malignant cells caused by oncogenic changes, meaning inflammation can lead to cancer, but cancer can also lead to inflammation. The tumour microenvironment coordinates pro-inflammatory responses through both inflammatory cells as well as mediators (cytokines, chemokines and prostaglandins), all of which are capable of acting in an autocrine and paracrine fashion, affecting both malignant and non-malignant cells.

The inflammatory microenvironment consists of tumour-infiltrating inflammatory cells, tumour-associated fibroblasts and endothelial progenitor cells. Both tumour and host cells, including stromal, endothelial and immune cells, release cytokines and chemokines within this microenvironment, enabling the coordination of a self-limiting immune response. Key factors in this setting include tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukins 6, 1α and 8 (IL-6, IL-1α, IL-8), the inflammatory chemokine CCL2, as well as the CXCL12–CXCR4 signalling cascade. Between them they are responsible for a diverse range of effects, such as generation of inflammation-associated immune responses and recruitment of inflammatory cells, promotion of cell growth, survival, invasion and angiogenesis.

The interactions described above are in no way an exhaustive list, with more investigation needed to fully elucidate the interactions between tumour, environment and immune system during the early stages of cancer development. Further investigation of these events and parallel development of preclinical models of early disease in which to study them has the potential to yield novel biomarkers for early detection of lung cancer. However, this remains challenging and is under researched.

Lung cancer screening

The efficacy of lung cancer screening, using either chest X-ray (CXR) or more recently computed tomography (CT), with or without additional adjuncts such as sputum cytology, has been investigated in numerous studies in asymptomatic at risk populations. Although earlier disease stage shift is an important outcome, the gold standard measure of screening efficacy is mortality reduction. This is to reduce the impact of lead time bias, where earlier detection of a cancer can result in an apparent improvement in survival without changing the eventual disease course (i.e. time of death remains the same).

Optimal delivery of lung cancer screening requires the targeting of those individuals most at risk. In this respect lung screening differs from other population-based screening programmes such as bowel, breast and cervix where all individuals of a certain age and sex are eligible. However, it is apparent from lung cancer screening trials that a significant participation bias exists, with those most at risk least likely to participate; in both the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and the UK Lung Cancer Pilot Screening Trial (UKLS), current smoking, older age and lower socioeconomic status were associated with reduced uptake. How to engage this so-called ‘hard-to-reach’ group is of fundamental importance for lung cancer screening implementation. The reasons given for non-participation in UKLS included travel, cost and inconvenience. One approach to improve service accessibility and overcome these practical barriers is to move screening ‘closer to home’. Community-based screening programmes, which use mobile CT scanners, may address some of these issues and improve participation. Although no study has directly addressed this, compliance in trials using mobile CT scanners is good and this type of approach has been effective in breast cancer screening. We are currently evaluating a community-based approach to lung cancer screening in areas of high deprivation and lung cancer incidence in Manchester. Emotional barriers, such as fear, anxiety and avoidance, are also important factors. Engagement of at-risk groups is essential to overcome this; approaches may include primary care endorsed invitational material, low-impact information leaflets that reduce the emphasis on ‘cancer’ and focus more on the health check aspect of screening and cancer champions who provide positive encouragement for people to attend.

Chest X-ray screening

Several randomized control trials in the 1970s used plain CXR and sputum cytology to detect early lung cancer. In the Mayo Clinic trial, patients were randomized to an intensive screening group where sputum cytology and CXRs were checked every 4 months or a control group where the standard advice of yearly screens was given. There was no difference in mortality between 4 monthly and yearly screens and this remained the case even after extended follow up (median 20.5 years). Although more resectable tumours were identified in the intensively screened group, the number of unresectable tumours was equal between the two groups and not higher in the control group as one would expect if screening were beneficial. More than 80% of lung cancers detected by sputum cytology alone were amenable to resection, but only accounted for 20% of diagnoses. Two studies, at Johns Hopkins and Memorial Sloan-Kettering cancer centres, including approximately 10 000 patients each, compared plain CXR with or without sputum cytology. Of the lung cancers that developed in the patient cohorts with dual screening, about 20% were detected by cytology alone—almost exclusively early stage squamous cell carcinomas. However, there was no difference in mortality by addition of cytology screening.

More recently the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening trial (PLCO) randomized 150 000 patients to either annual CXR or usual care (i.e. no screening intervention). In contrast to the Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins and Memorial Sloan-Kettering trials, only around 50% were current or former smokers. In agreement with previous studies, there was no mortality benefit in screening with CXR. However, there were some positive aspects for reflection; 60% of lung cancers that developed within the screening period were detected by the screening CXR (rather than ‘interval’ cancers), and of these, half were stage I disease.

Low-dose CT screening

CT delivers more detailed images of the chest than CXR and, therefore, is more useful for diagnosing cancer. However, it is generally accepted that the radiation dose, which is about 100 times higher than CXR, is too high for the benefits of early diagnosis to outweigh the risks of radiation exposure. Thus it was not until CT was validated at lower radiation doses that there was a renewed appetite for lung cancer screening. This ‘low-dose CT’ (LDCT) has 22% of the effective radiation dose of a standard CT. Screening with LDCT still poses a risk of radiation induced cancers, recently estimated at 4 per 10 000 patients screened in a trial in Milan, although this included the radiation dose of follow up PET CTs for positive LDCT scans, which carry a significantly higher radiation dose. Balancing this risk against the benefits of screening, the authors of this study have suggested that LDCT can be considered safe, but suggested altering protocols to reduce PET CTs in screening trials to mitigate risks of radiation exposure.

There have now been several LDCT trials, all have focused on at-risk populations, defined according to age and smoking exposure (generally 20–30 pack years). Two Italian studies (DANTE, n = 2472 and MILD, n = 4099) and a Danish study (DLCST, n = 4104) randomized individuals to LDCT screening or a control arm, which at most included yearly medical reviews. LDCT screening had no impact on lung cancer mortality in any of these studies, despite the increased detection of early stage disease. In addition, there was no difference in the number of late stage cancers detected in the DANTE and DLCST trials where this comparison is presented.

Given the increased diagnosis of lung cancer by LDCT, but apparent lack of a mortality benefit, it was postulated that these studies were underpowered. To address this, the NLST randomized a much larger population (n = 53 454 participants) at risk of lung cancer (55–74 years, ≥30 pack years, smoked within 15 years) to either annual LDCT or CXR over three years. This seminal study demonstrated a significant reduction in lung cancer specific (20%) and all-cause (6.7%) mortality in the LDCT arm. Furthermore, there was also a reduction in late-stage diagnosis, indicating successful identification and management of early stage disease. As a direct consequence of NLST, the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) published recommendations supporting LDCT screening and advised extending the upper age limit to 80 years.

Although successful, there are several issues raised by the NLST that will be informative for future lung cancer screening. There were 231 more stage 1A and 1B cancers diagnosed in the LDCT group compared with control, 93% of which were surgically resected, yet overall there were only 79 fewer lung cancer-related deaths in the LDCT group. This may be due to relatively high rates of disease recurrence even after ‘successful’ surgery for early stage disease. It is estimated to affect 30–50% of patients, most commonly at sites distant to the resected primary tumour (e.g. brain, bone and liver, where outcomes are very poor). One explanation for the higher detection rate in the LDCT arm is over-diagnosis, which is estimated to account for 18% of cancers in NLST. Over-diagnosis is due to the investigation and treatment of indolent lung cancers that would never have become clinically significant. This is an increasingly recognized phenomenon most often caused by treatment of adenocarcinomas with a lepidic growth pattern (e.g. adenocarcinoma in situ or minimally invasive adenocarcinomas). However, in a recent LDCT randomised trial lower mortality rates were observed in the LDCT group (although not reaching statistical significance) without evidence of over-diagnosis. Interestingly, SCLCs were not detected at earlier stages by LDCT.

Another challenge was the high false-positive rate of LDCT, which was 96%. This was in part due to the policy to refer any nodule more than 4 mm in diameter for further investigation. This has been addressed in the ongoing NELSON trial, comparing LDCT to no screening, where a volumetric analysis of nodules significantly reduced the false-positive rate. In the UKLS trial, a structured nodule management protocol reduced the false-positive rate to 3.6%, although 23% of participants required additional interval scanning. The NELSON study has also provided an interesting comparison of screen detected and interval cancers in the LDCT group, where 69% of cancers that emerged outside of screening were late stage versus 5% of screen-detected cancers.

Selecting the target population

Lung cancer screening requires specific targeting of those at most risk to be effective. For example, there is no evidence of benefit in screening never-smokers. Further analysis of the NLST population, after stratification by lung cancer risk, demonstrated that even in current or former smokers there was a marked difference in lung cancer detection rates. Almost no lung cancers were detected in the lowest risk quintile compared with 88% in the highest three risk quintiles. In addition, only a fraction of individuals diagnosed with lung cancer, in routine clinical practice, would be eligible for screening by NLST criteria. The application of a more precise risk calculator to the NLST population demonstrated that the mortality benefit of LDCT was consistent for individuals with a lung cancer risk score of ≥1.51% over 6 years, or above the 65th centile of risk, thus defining a more precise threshold for screening. Moreover, application of risk calculators is likely to improve the cost-effectiveness of screening.

Bronchoscopy

Bronchoscopy has an established role in the diagnosis and, more recently, with the introduction of endobronchial ultrasound, the nodal staging of lung cancer. With serious complication rates of about 1% and the ability to be performed safely in an outpatient setting, bronchoscopy could play a role in early detection of lung cancer. However, sensitivity for detection of lung cancer in patients for whom this diagnosis is suspected is variable, ranging from 34% to 88% depending on size and position of tumour. If applied in a screening context to patients at risk of lung cancer, but without suspicious radiological imaging per se, sensitivity may be even lower. In an effort to improve the sensitivity of bronchoscopy in lung cancer diagnosis, Spira et al. analysed RNA expression of histologically normal bronchial epithelium sampled at the time of bronchoscopy in patients suspected of lung cancer. An 80-gene classifier was identified in a training cohort of 77 patients that distinguished smokers with and without lung cancer with a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 84% in an independent validation cohort.

This approach was applied in the work-up of patients suspected of lung cancer, in the context of a non-diagnostic bronchoscopy, where a classifier was identified based on expression of 17 genes in bronchial epithelium. The classifier had 93% sensitivity and 53% specificity, and a negative predictive value of 94%, meaning it could be used as an adjunct when bronchoscopy is non-diagnostic to identify low-risk patients that do not need follow up procedures. This classifier was prospectively validated in a larger cohort of 639 patients undergoing investigation of suspected cancer. Overall the sensitivity for the classifier was 89%, in comparison with 75% for bronchoscopy alone. Interestingly, the sensitivity of the classifier was similar for peripheral and central lesions, in contrast to bronchoscopy, where sensitivity decreased to 55% for peripheral lesions. Combining bronchoscopy and the classifier led to an overall sensitivity of 97% for diagnosis of lung cancer. However, due to the highly selected nature of this population, with more than 70% developing lung cancer, it is unclear how this would perform in a screening context.

Auto-fluorescence bronchoscopy (AFB) capitalizes on the observation that the emission spectrum of bronchial mucosa under blue light changes when dysplastic or carcinomatous lesions develop. After a degree of image processing, normal bronchial mucosa is displayed as green, in contrast to reddish brown for dysplastic/carcinomatous lesions. In one study of 186 patients referred due to sputum atypia, an abnormal CT or CXR, patients were evaluated sequentially by white light, followed by AFB. Samples of suspicious lesions were then taken for histology. Positive histology was obtained from 32 patients with white light and AFB identified an additional 8. Several other studies have been conducted with similar methodology and were recently included in a meta-analysis. The sensitivity/specificity of AFB was 89%/64% compared with 67%/84% for white field. Thus AFB is more sensitive, but white field more specific, with bronchitis being the major confounder for AFB. AFB is particularly suited to squamous cell carcinoma in situ, which is a relatively rare finding thereby limiting its role. However, it has been included as part of the work up in a multi-centre clinical trial for the early detection of lung cancer, the LungSEARCH study. As discussed below, COPD patients were recruited to provide sputum for cytology/cytometry, and were then referred for CT/AFB if any abnormalities were detected. The full results for this study have not yet been reported, but will certainly be informative for screening in general and evaluating the place of AFB in screening.

Liquid biopsies

The use of blood-borne biomarkers (so-called ‘liquid biopsies’) is beginning to gain traction for the monitoring of advanced stage lung cancers. Liquid biopsies include circulating nucleic acids, circulating proteins and circulating tumour cells (CTCs) (summarized in figure 1). While the attraction of this minimally invasive approach is clear, as a blood sample is easily repeatable and economic compared with imaging, the key issue is the sensitivity and specificity of detection for application to early diagnosis.

Circulating microRNAs in lung cancer detection

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are essential regulators of gene expression, acting through translational inhibition or degradation of messenger RNA (mRNA) targets. Alteration in miRNA expression has been implicated in the pathogenesis of most cancers. One example, let7 miRNA, is downregulated in lung cancer tissue but when overexpressed inhibits lung cancer cell line growth. Conversely, over-expression of miRNA-21 has been demonstrated in both lung cancer cell lines and tissue.

Circulating miRNAs are present in blood from both healthy controls and patients with lung cancer. They appear to make up most of the RNA fraction in blood and are remarkably resistant to RNAse degradation. This stability means that miRNA has the potential to be used as a diagnostic biomarker. MiRNA may also enter the bloodstream in microvesicles (exosomes), secreted from platelets or phagocytic mononuclear cells. Evidence also points to exosomes originating from cancer cells raising the possibility of distant signalling and preparation of niches for metastatic spread, which is a burgeoning research field.

Studies have looked at the association of plasma miRNA expression and lung cancer. Wozniak et al. compared circulating plasma miRNAs in stage I–IIIA lung cancer with controls to identify a 24 miRNA panel that was differentially expressed. Another study looked at two specific miRNAs, miR944 and miR3662, in 85 healthy controls and 90 patients finding that both miRNAs were overexpressed more than fourfold relative to healthy controls in patients with NSCLC. There was no significant difference in expression between these two miRNAs between squamous cell carcinomas and adenocarcinomas.

Shen et al. identified four miRNAs (mir-21, mir-126, mir-210 and mir-486–5p) in plasma that could distinguish patients with NSCLC from controls with 86% sensitivity and 97% specificity. Interestingly, this panel had a higher sensitivity for adenocarcinomas (91%) than squamous cell carcinomas (82%). The same authors also compared plasma miRNA expression between benign and malignant solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs). Mir-21 and 210 were upregulated, and mir-486–5p was downregulated in malignant SPNs compared with benign SPNs. This allowed the authors to develop a model that had 75% sensitivity and 85% specificity for detecting malignancy from CT detected SPNs.

The potential for miRNA analysis to improve the effectiveness of lung cancer screening programmes has been explored. Boeri et al. analysed miRNA expression in plasma from patients in a LDCT lung screening study to identify differentially expressed miRNAs prior to development and at diagnosis of lung cancer. A panel of 15 miRNAs was identified for detection prior to diagnosis and another panel of 13 (with some overlap to the first 15) for diagnosis. These were validated on plasma samples from the MILD study. Sensitivity of 80% and sensitivity of 90% was obtained for detection prior to diagnosis, while sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 100% was obtained at the time of diagnosis. Furthermore, a further panel of nine miRNAs were able to predict poor prognosis with 80% sensitivity and 100% specificity in the validation cohort. These miRNAs were amalgamated into a panel of 24, which were subsequently used to generate a miRNA signature classifier (MSC), stratifying patients into low, intermediate or high risk. This tool was applied retrospectively in a blinded fashion to a larger patient cohort from the MILD study, where it had 87% sensitivity and 81% specificity. When combined with LDCT, it reduced the false-positive rate fivefold. Furthermore, there was a statistically significant trend in survival from low risk to high risk in terms of 5-year survival. However, it did not perform as well as clinico-pathological staging at predicting prognosis. The use of circulating MiRNAs appears to show promise for earlier detection of NSCLC, but independent, well-designed and high-powered validation studies are now required to qualify their use.

Antibodies in lung cancer detection

It is well established that the genetic aberrations involved in carcinogenesis lead to altered expression of ‘self antigens’ either through inappropriate expression of tissue specific proteins or so-called ‘neo-antigens’ (i.e. the products of non-synonymous gene mutations). These tumour antigens are at the interface between the immune system and developing cancers, occurring throughout the malignant process and therefore offering the possibility for exploitation as early detection biomarkers. The relationship between the immune system and cancer is complex, and the literature is weighted towards the roles of cytotoxic T cells. However, it has long been recognized that the humoral immune system can be dysregulated leading to the production of autoantibodies that can be harnessed as a means for biomarker discovery.

There have been a number of studies that have looked for antibodies associated with the presence of lung cancer. Among the first were p53 antibodies, which are present in around 12% of lung cancer patients (including SCLC and NSCLC). Indeed, the potential that these could hold was underscored by the emergence of p53 antibodies prior to radiologically detectable lung cancer. Since then several antibodies have been reported to be associated with lung cancer, and these have been amalgamated into panels for early detection. One study identified five epitopes from a phage display library of NSCLC that reacted more strongly with serum from patients with NSCLC than controls. Combining the analysis of these epitopes distinguished NSCLC from controls with 91% sensitivity and 91% specificity.

A panel of six antibodies (antibodies to p53, NY-ESO-1, CAGE, GBU4-5, Annexin 1 and SOX-2) was tested at the time of diagnosis of lung cancer on a cohort including both SCLC and NSCLC patients and matched controls. Sensitivity of 37% and specificity of 90% was achieved in the final validation group. This panel of antibodies was tested on post-validation groups with similar results, and is now a commercially available assay with the trade name EarlyCDT-Lung. The same authors used this panel of six antibodies, in addition to anti-Hu-D, in a cohort of SCLC patients. Antibodies to Annexin 1 were dropped from analysis due to no difference in levels between SCLC patients and controls. Setting specificity to 90% for the remaining panel of antibodies, sensitivity was 50%; however, these findings were not validated in an independent population. The original panel was then revised to give a seven antibody panel including p53, NY-ESO-1, CAGE, GBU4-5, Hu-D, SOX-2, MAGE-A4 to improve sensitivity/specificity to 47%/90%. EarlyCDT-Lung has had a limited introduction into clinical practice, where it has been used by clinicians in the work up for lung cancer in high-risk patients. The first 1699 patients (including both the six and the seven antibody panels) were included in an audit with a follow-up of 6 months and found sensitivities/specificities of 46%/83% for the six-antibody panel and 37%/91% for the seven-antibody panel. A Scottish trial of 12 000 people, randomized to either EarlyCDT-Lung or usual care (i.e. no screening), aims to determine the role of this blood test in a lung cancer screening programme.

Antibodies to tumour-specific antigens have been applied to LDCT trials to determine their effectiveness in detecting lung cancer. To this end Trudgen et al. used a panel of six antibodies (antibodies to APEX1, NOLC1, PXN, Bac clone R580E16 and MT-RNR2) on serum obtained from lung cancer patients prior to diagnosis and at diagnosis, as well as controls. Using the Mayo LDCT cohort as a training group and Marty Driesler Lung Screening project as a validation cohort, sensitivity for NSCLC was 58% overall, and specificity was 43%. The low sensitivities and specificities obtained in these studies illustrate the difficulty in finding consistent serological changes that are unique to lung cancer, and may limit the utility of these assays in large screening programs.

ctDNA in lung cancer detection

DNA is thought to enter plasma either passively through cell death (necrosis or apoptosis), or by active secretion from living cells. A portion of this cell free DNA in patients with cancer arises from the tumour and forms the so-called ‘circulating tumour DNA’ (ctDNA) fraction. The utility of ctDNA in lung cancer was demonstrated in a study of NSCLC, where common mutations were identified to create a library for detecting mutations associated with NSCLC. Sensitivity and specificity of 85% and 96%, respectively, were obtained in a validation cohort of healthy controls and patients with NSCLC. There was also a correlation between tumour volume and amount of ctDNA within patients over time, opening the prospect of using ctDNA to monitor response to treatment. ctDNA was detectable in all late stage NSCLC cases, but only 50% of early stage cases.

A multinational European prospective study GENAIR obtained blood samples from healthy people at risk of cancer by means of occupational/tobacco exposure. Mutations in TP53 and KRAS were detectable on average 20 months and 14 months prior to cancer diagnosis, respectively, but only in 4.6% of patients for TP53 and 1.5% for KRAS. Furthermore, 3% and 0.9% controls that did not develop cancer in over 5 years of follow up were also positive for TP53 and KRAS mutations. In working towards developing an assay for early detection, one study evaluated mutations in TP53 in early and late stage SCLC, comparing these with controls to get an idea of the specificity of this approach. TP53 mutations were identified in 35% early stage and 54% late stage tumours, but these could also be identified in 11% matched controls.

The total amount of circulating DNA has been estimated through quantifying the human telomerase (hTERT) gene. Using this approach, patients with NSCLC had much higher circulating levels than age/sex/smoking matched controls. A follow-on study looked at total circulating DNA in a population of patients with a significant smoking history included in an observational study for LDCT. There was no association between total amounts of circulating DNA at baseline and risk of subsequent cancer, although more circulating DNA at diagnosis was predictive of a worse prognosis. Furthermore, measuring total circulating DNA is not specific for NSCLC; increased amounts of circulating DNA are also found in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis for example.

The current clinical utility of ctDNA lies in the personalization of ctDNA assays based on biopsy derived genomic landscapes, and the subsequent monitoring of patient response and emergent resistance to treatment and of tumour evolution. In a screening context, common lung cancer mutations such as in p53 can be used, but are also present in patients with a smoking history in the absence of lung cancer, confounding specificity. Furthermore, there is growing evidence for extensive genetic mosaicism in healthy tissue, including the presence of mutations in genes that have a known role in cancer. While the sensitivity of candidate gene analysis using droplet digital PCR based approaches is higher, a broader panel of genetic mutations could be more informative on tumour presence as the sensitivity of next-generation sequencing increases.

Circulating tumour cells in lung cancer detection

As aggressive cancers grow and develop, cell subpopulations acquire altered phenotypes and become motile, invading surrounding tissue and gaining access into the blood stream via a number of mechanisms including epithelial to mesenchymal transition, cell cooperation and vasculogenic mimicry. These so-called CTCs are heterogenous and are postulated to harbour the subset of cells responsible for the development of distant metastases. Lending credence to this view in the lung cancer field, CTCs derived from SCLC patients have been shown to be tumourigenic in mice, forming explants that also accurately re-capitulate the response to treatment seen in the original patients. There are several methods of detecting CTCs and as such they have an emerging role as both a qualitative and quantitative biomarker of cancer burden.

CTCs captured via EpCAM expression and enumerated (using the CellSearch platform) are prognostic in metastatic breast, prostate and colorectal cancers. CellSearch detected CTCs are particularly prevalent in SCLC; in one study 85% of patients had detectable CTCs and greater than 50 CTCs in 7.5 ml blood CTCs was an independent prognostic biomarker. However, while still prognostic (at greater than 5 CTCs in 7.5 ml blood) in NSCLC, CellSearch CTCs were detected in only 23% patients with stage III/IV disease in contrast to a size-based filtration method that yielded detectable CTCs in 80% patients in the same cohort. Nonetheless, a study in NSCLC was able to increase the sensitivity of CellSearch in NSCLC by measuring CTCs from the pulmonary veins at the time of surgery in stage I–IIIA NSCLC where higher numbers of CTCs correlated with a shorter patient survival. These data imply that CTCs are shed from earlier stage NSCLCs and may therefore have utility for earlier detection.

There has been interest in looking at CTCs in early stage disease/diagnosis. In a single centre study of patients referred to a thoracic centre with either a pathological diagnosis of lung cancer (SCLC and NSCLC) or high suspicion, CellSearch was used to quantify CTCs, but they were only present in 31% of patients who were subsequently diagnosed with lung cancer. However, the number of CTCs did correlate with later stage disease, in agreement with previous studies.

Using different methods of CTC detection is likely to yield dividends in early detection. Isolation by size of epithelial tumour cells (ISET) detected CTCs in 50% of patients with NSCLC prior to radical treatment, in contrast to 39% with CellSearch. Combining the two techniques led to detection in 69% patients. The best evidence so far for CTC utility in earlier detection of lung cancer was observed using ISET alone in a population of 168 COPD patients; only the five patients with detectable CTCs developed lung cancer during the course of a 5-year follow up. This was in contrast to rest of the patients without CTCs who were lung cancer-free at the end of the follow-up period.

Another study used a ligand PCR method to quantify CTCs. After immune-depletion of erythrocytes and leukocytes, cells were labelled with a ligand for the folate receptor (FOLR1) conjugated to an oligonucleotide, allowing quantification by real time PCR. This approach led to detectable CTCs in 8 of 10 stage I/II NSCLC patients tested and overall a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 93% for detection of stage I–IV NSCLC versus controls.

The technical hurdle for CTC analysis is the extremely rare occurrence of CTCs in even advanced late stage patients relative to the overwhelming number of blood cells in the sample. CTC heterogeneity confounds marker dependent capture, and not all CTCs are larger than blood cells, posing confounders on size-based methods. Moreover, any CTC enrichment step incurs cell loss. New approaches such as the high definition-single cell analysis platform is more suited to early detection as all cells in the sample are assessed using a flexible panel of markers and cells can be imaged and physically picked for single cell molecular analysis to confirm tumour origin. The utility of CTC analysis for early detection remains to be comprehensively addressed and the question of whether survival time will be lengthened once CTCs are detectable remains unclear. Molecular profiling of ‘early’ CTCs may inform earlier intervention with personalised treatment.

Sputum analysis

As described above, initial studies of lung cancer screening with sputum cytology were disappointing. However, there is renewed interest in analysing sputum through automated cytometrics as well as new molecular techniques. One example is the multi-centre UK trial LungSEARCH, where COPD patients have been randomized to yearly sputum cytology/cytometry or no screening. Patients with positive cytology/cytometry then receive thoracic CT and AFB.

In one study, induced sputum from patients with asbestosis, silicosis or undergoing follow up for resected lung cancer was collected and compared with sputum from heavy smokers and healthy controls. Combining sputum cytology with quantitative image cytometry using the Cyto-Savant cytometer led to a specificity of 90% and sensitivity of 80%. Another study looked at the combination of LDCT and sputum cytology in 187 high-risk asbestos-exposed patients. Although limited by small numbers, during 3 years of follow-up 18 patients developed lung cancer, of which 6 were detected by sputum and LDCT, 5 by CT alone and 1 by sputum alone.

MicroRNA has also been measured in sputum as a means of early detection. In one study of lung squamous cell carcinoma a panel of three miRNAs (mir-205, mir-210 and mir-708) had a diagnostic sensitivity of 72% and specificity of 95% of distinguishing patients with squamous cell carcinomas from controls. A further study in lung adenocarcinoma used a panel of four miRNAs (mir-21, mir-486, mir-375 and mir-200b) had a diagnostic sensitivity of 70% and a specificity of 80% of distinguishing NSCLC (including both squamous and adenocarcinoma), although these values were more accurate when only considering lung adenocarcinomas. This latter study reflects the difficulty in developing a robust panel of miRNAs that can be used on an unselected population for screening. In an attempt to combine sputum miRNA with thoracic CT, one study showed that a panel of three miRNAs (MiR-21, 31, 210) could distinguish CT detected solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) from malignant neoplasms with a sensitivity of 80–82% and a specificity of 86–88%.

There has also been interest in applying DNA mutational analysis to sputum as a means of lung cancer early detection (reviewed in). Interestingly, one retrospective study comparing sputum samples taken prior to histological diagnosis of lung adenocarcinoma found that KRAS mutations could be detected in the sputum of 5 out of 11 patients with KRAS positive tumours between 1 month and 4 years prior to clinical diagnosis. A prospective study in a LDCT cohort tested sputum for KRAS and p53 mutations, in addition to p16INK4A, RASSF1A and NORE1A hypermethylation in 820 heavy smokers. At least one mutation or hypermethylation was present in 56 patients, of which only 1 developed lung cancer after 3 years of follow up.

Application of molecular and cytometric analysis to sputum has yielded interesting results, with specificities of more than 90% seen in cytometry and microRNA analysis, offering potential as adjunctive tests to reduce the false-positive rates in LDCT screening. However, their use in early detection is yet to be established.

Exhaled breath analysis

As a completely non-invasive and readily available patient sample, exhaled breath offers great potential as a screening tool. As an example in respiratory medicine, exhaled nitric oxide is now recommended by NICE as an option to help diagnose asthma. There have been several interesting studies using exhaled breath as a means of lung cancer detection. Perhaps the most intriguing involved training dogs to distinguish lung and breast cancer patients from controls on the basis of volatile components (VOC) in breath samples captured on silicone oil-coated polypropylene soaked cotton wool. In a double-blinded validation cohort sensitivity and specificity were both 99%. However, a more recent study with a similar design and sample size had sensitivity of 71% and specificity of 93% for canine detection of lung cancer. At the least these studies provide some proof of principle that there is a detectable ‘smell print’ for lung cancer and to this end, several devices have been used to provide reproducible measurements of exhaled VOC in lung cancer. Ion mobility spectrometry offers a sensitive means of detecting volatile compounds in exhaled breath and in a pilot study patients with lung cancer were readily distinguished from controls. Analysis of VOC by gas chromatography mass spectrometry was used in a training cohort to look for a signature of lung cancer. In an independent cohort, including healthy controls, patients at risk of lung cancer (without a diagnosis) and patients with a tissue diagnosis, this had a sensitivity of 68% and specificity of 68%. Composite measures of VOCs have also been used. One system measures changes in the oscillating frequency of quartz crystals caused by adsorption and desorption of VOCs. Lung cancer could be distinguished from healthy controls with a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 100%. The Cyranose 320 consists of carbon black polymers that change electrical resistance in response to adsorption of VOCs. Comparing healthy controls to patients with lung cancer, a ‘smell print’ for cancer was generated in a training cohort, which had a sensitivity of 71% and specificity of 92% in an independent validation cohort.

One can infer from these studies that lung cancer changes the chemical composition of breath and that current technology is sufficiently sensitive to detect these changes. However, at this stage it is not clear whether similar changes can be detected prior to radiological change or in early stage disease and whether using this modality will increase the specificity of low-dose CT.

Discussion

Early detection is critically important if a significant reduction in lung cancer morbidity and mortality is to be realized. In this regard, the enormous potential of LDCT has been conclusively demonstrated by the NLST trial, which has provided a rationale for LDCT screening in high-risk ever-smokers. However, NLST selection criteria are not optimal and may exclude many patients with early lung cancer as shown in a retrospective study of patients diagnosed with stage I–II lung cancer, where just 48% met the NLST inclusion criteria for age and smoking. Furthermore, one study estimated that just 26.7% of lung cancers diagnosed in the United States were covered by NLST criteria, using data from SEER (surveillance, epidemiology and end results). Improving the precision of population selection is also likely to improve screening performance further and reduce harm.

Although some patients at risk of lung cancer have other co-morbidities that could preclude surgery, new approaches such as stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) have had promising results in treating patients with stage I lung cancer who are not fit for surgery, meaning more patients could benefit from early detection through screening. It is also not clear how many CT scans patients should have over the course of their lifetime. Given that new cancers were detected at each screening interval in LDCT trials, it would seem that regular CTs are needed, but clearly there is an oncogenic risk with repeated radiation doses. A recent study estimated that 4 cancers would be induced per 10 000 patients in lung cancer screening trials; however, this figure included the significant radiation doses of follow-up PET CTs performed after positive LDCT scans. Application of better risk calculators and improved imaging protocols for following patients up could aid to reduce this risk somewhat.

The caveats of LDCT include high false-positive results and the fact that late stage cancers still emerge between screening intervals. Thus there is a need for further complementary tests both to reduce the number of false positives and to work in the blind spot of LDCT to detect aggressive cancers early. Furthermore, better identification of patients at risk could reduce the number of patients requiring screening.

Several modalities have been explored in the search for biomarkers of lung cancer. Plasma microRNA and antibody assays appear to have adequate specificity to address the high false-positive rate of LDCT. Plasma microRNAs hold the most promise in this regard; with a retrospective study predicting a fivefold reduction in false-positive rates when used in conjunction with LDCT. In contrast to antibody assays, plasma microRNAs also appear to have a reasonable sensitivity, but they are untested in terms of diagnosing aggressive cancers missed by LDCT. Thus there is still a great need for further tests, particularly aimed at early detection of aggressive cancers. Given that the number of CTCs correlates with a poorer prognosis, it follows that these could be harnessed as biomarkers for early aggressive disease. The understanding of early molecular events in lung tumourigenesis is increasing, with elegant and comprehensive studies in mouse models, which could lead to biomarker development based on detailed knowledge of early lung cancer biology. However, the relative paucity of patient relevant preclinical models of early lung cancers remains a challenge in translation of lung cancer screening.

There has been much interest in using sputum as a means of early detection from the beginning of lung cancer screening trials; however, early results in the 1970s were disappointing. With the rise of molecular biology there has been renewed interest in sputum analysis, but as yet no definitive benefit in using this modality has been identified.

The novel biomarkers discussed hold much promise for the field of early detection. However, there are some fundamental challenges that need to be considered. First, the nature of conducting biomarker research studies that are large enough to be informative is costly. Patient recruitment can also be an issue, given that lung cancer prevalence is highest in socio-economically deprived areas. Innovations that can increase participation in this demographic are vital and include community-based research studies that are geographically easier to attend.

Biomarker discovery in lung cancer can be easily confounded by the high prevalence of chronic lung disease in patients with lung cancer. To this end, biomarkers that are direct products of the tumour are likely to hold promise, but specific knowledge of the tumour in each patient is needed to fully harness this potential. This approach has therefore been successful in the TRACERx study, where specific DNA mutations identified in resected tumours were monitored through ctDNA after surgery, but in the context of early detection, where details of the tumour are unknown, it is altogether more difficult. A further challenge relates to the nature of novel biomarkers themselves, which at present are generally only detectable in specific assays that involve complex analyses, requiring the expertise of specialist research laboratories to interpret. Hence, as biomarkers emerge, there will be a need for more extensive work to develop these tests in a form that is reproducible in clinical laboratories and can be interpreted in community settings.

In summary, the field of lung cancer screening holds much promise. Its future success is likely to be realized in a multi-modality approach including both radiology and molecular assays. The benefit of screening is intimately related to the options available for treatment and to this end surgical resection has a proven track record. Furthermore, in patients who are not fit enough for surgery, new interventions like SABR hold promise. In the event that patients are unable to tolerate these therapies, early diagnosis holds other benefits, including the opportunity for early planning of care and engagement with cancer services at an early stage to improve quality of life.

References 159

  1. 1.

    Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A 2015 Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 65, 87–108. (doi:10.3322/caac.21262)

    Not in our library10.3322/caac.21262

  2. 2.

    Herbst RS, Heymach JV, Lippman SM 2008 Lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 359, 1367–1380. (doi:10.1056/NEJMra0802714)

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmra0802714

  3. 3.

    Shah R, Sabanathan S, Richardson J, Mearns AJ, Goulden C 1996 Results of surgical treatment of stage I and II lung cancer. J. Cardiovasc. Surg. 37, 169–172.

    Not in our library

  4. 4.

    Nesbitt JC, Putnam JB Jr, Walsh GL, Roth JA, Mountain CF 1995 Survival in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 60, 466–472. (doi:10.1016/0003-4975(95)00169-L)

    Not in our library10.1016/0003-4975(95)00169-l

  5. 5.

    Goldstraw P et al. 2016 The IASLC lung cancer staging project: proposals for revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (eighth) edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer. J. Thorac. Oncol. 11, 39–51. (doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2015.09.009)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jtho.2015.09.009

  6. 6.

    Walters S et al. 2013 Lung cancer survival and stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK: a population-based study, 2004–2007. Thorax. 68, 551–564. (doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2012-202297)

    Not in our library10.1136/thoraxjnl-2012-202297

  7. 7.

    Broggio J, Bannister N 2016 Cancer survival by stage at diagnosis for England. Newport, UK: Office for National Statistics.

    Not in our library

  8. 8.
  9. 9.

    Yang CF et al. 2016 Role of adjuvant therapy in a population-based cohort of patients with early-stage small-cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 34, 1057–1064. (doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.63.8171)

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2015.63.8171

  10. 10.

    Wakeam E, Acuna SA, Leighl NB, Giuliani ME, Finlayson SRG, Varghese TK, Darling GE 2017 Surgery versus chemotherapy and radiotherapy for early and locally advanced small cell lung cancer: a propensity-matched analysis of survival. Lung Cancer 109, 78–88. (doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2017.04.021)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.lungcan.2017.04.021

  11. 11.

    Hogan BL et al. 2014 Repair and regeneration of the respiratory system: complexity, plasticity, and mechanisms of lung stem cell function. Cell Stem Cell 15, 123–138. (doi:10.1016/j.stem.2014.07.012)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.stem.2014.07.012

  12. 12.

    Kotton DN, Morrisey EE 2014 Lung regeneration: mechanisms, applications and emerging stem cell populations. Nat. Med. 20, 822–832. (doi:10.1038/nm.3642)

    Not in our library10.1038/nm.3642

  13. 13.

    Whitsett JA, Alenghat T 2015 Respiratory epithelial cells orchestrate pulmonary innate immunity. Nat. Immunol. 16, 27–35. (doi:10.1038/ni.3045)

    Not in our library10.1038/ni.3045

  14. 14.

    Barkauskas CE, Cronce MJ, Rackley CR, Bowie EJ, Keene DR, Stripp BR, Randell SH, Noble PW, Hogan BLM 2013 Type 2 alveolar cells are stem cells in adult lung. J. Clin. Invest. 123, 3025–3036. (doi:10.1172/JCI68782)

    Not in our library10.1172/jci68782

  15. 15.

    Karachaliou N, Pilotto S, Lazzari C, Bria E, de Marinis F, Rosell R 2016 Cellular and molecular biology of small cell lung cancer: an overview. Transl. Lung Cancer Res. 5, 2–15. (doi:10.21037/tlcr.2016.07.02)

    Not in our library10.3978/j.issn.2218-6751.2016.01.02

  16. 16.

    Kwon MC, Berns A 2013 Mouse models for lung cancer. Mol. Oncol. 7, 165–177. (doi:10.1016/j.molonc.2013.02.010)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molonc.2013.02.010

  17. 17.

    Park KS et al. 2011 Characterization of the cell of origin for small cell lung cancer. Cell Cycle. 10, 2806–2815. (doi:10.4161/cc.10.16.17012)

    Not in our library10.4161/cc.10.16.17012

  18. 18.

    Sutherland KD, Proost N, Brouns I, Adriaensen D, Song JY, Berns A 2011 Cell of origin of small cell lung cancer: inactivation of Trp53 and Rb1 in distinct cell types of adult mouse lung. Cancer Cell. 19, 754–764. (doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2011.04.019)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2011.04.019

  19. 19.

    Hanna JM, Onaitis MW 2013 Cell of origin of lung cancer. J. Carcinog. 12, 6 (doi:10.4103/1477-3163.109033)

    Not in our library10.4103/1477-3163.109033

  20. 20.

    Crusz SM, Balkwill FR 2015 Inflammation and cancer: advances and new agents. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 12, 584–596. (doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.105)

    Not in our library10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.105

  21. 21.

    Yang L, Karin M 2014 Roles of tumor suppressors in regulating tumor-associated inflammation. Cell Death Differ. 21, 1677–1686. (doi:10.1038/cdd.2014.131)

    Not in our library10.1038/cdd.2014.131

  22. 22.

    Kundu JK, Surh YJ 2008 Inflammation: gearing the journey to cancer. Mutat. Res. 659, 15–30. (doi:10.1016/j.mrrev.2008.03.002)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.mrrev.2008.03.002

  23. 23.

    Mantovani A, Allavena P, Sica A, Balkwill F 2008 Cancer-related inflammation. Nature 454, 436–444. (doi:10.1038/nature07205)

    Not in our library10.1038/nature07205

  24. 24.

    Balkwill F, Coussens LM 2004 Cancer: an inflammatory link. Nature 431, 405–406. (doi:10.1038/431405a)

    Not in our library10.1038/431405a

  25. 25.

    Coussens LM, Werb Z 2002 Inflammation and cancer. Nature 420, 860–867. (doi:10.1038/nature01322)

    Not in our library10.1038/nature01322

  26. 26.

    Grivennikov SI, Greten FR, Karin M 2010 Immunity, inflammation, and cancer. Cell 140, 883–899. (doi:10.1016/j.cell.2010.01.025)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2010.01.025

  27. 27.

    Ancrile B, Lim KH, Counter CM 2007 Oncogenic Ras-induced secretion of IL6 is required for tumorigenesis. Genes Dev. 21, 1714–1719. (doi:10.1101/gad.1549407)

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.1549407

  28. 28.

    D'Alterio C et al. 2012 Inhibition of stromal CXCR4 impairs development of lung metastases. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 61, 1713–1720. (doi:10.1007/s00262-012-1223-7)

    Not in our library10.1007/s00262-012-1223-7

  29. 29.

    Fridlender ZG, Albelda SM 2012 Tumor-associated neutrophils: friend or foe? Carcinogenesis 33, 949–955. (doi:10.1093/carcin/bgs123)

    Not in our library10.1093/carcin/bgs123

  30. 30.

    Ling J et al. 2012 KrasG12D-induced IKK2/beta/NF-kappaB activation by IL-1alpha and p62 feedforward loops is required for development of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Cell. 21, 105–120. (doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2011.12.006)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2011.12.006

  31. 31.

    Muller A et al. 2001 Involvement of chemokine receptors in breast cancer metastasis. Nature 410, 50–56. (doi:10.1038/35065016)

    Not in our library10.1038/35065016

  32. 32.

    Sanmamed MF et al. 2014 Serum interleukin-8 reflects tumor burden and treatment response across malignancies of multiple tissue origins. Clin. Cancer Res. 20, 5697–5707. (doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-3203)

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-13-3203

  33. 33.

    Singer CF et al. 2003 Interleukin 1 system and sex steroid receptor expression in human breast cancer: interleukin 1alpha protein secretion is correlated with malignant phenotype. Clin. Cancer Res. 9, 4877–4883.

    Not in our library

  34. 34.

    Tazzyman S, Lewis CE, Murdoch C 2009 Neutrophils: key mediators of tumour angiogenesis. Int. J. Exp. Pathol. 90, 222–231. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2613.2009.00641.x)

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2613.2009.00641.x

  35. 35.

    Tomimatsu S, Ichikura T, Mochizuki H 2001 Significant correlation between expression of interleukin-1alpha and liver metastasis in gastric carcinoma. Cancer. 91, 1272–1276. (doi:10.1002/1097-0142(20010401)91:7<1272::AID-CNCR1128>3.0.CO;2-Z)

    Not in our library10.1002/1097-0142(20010401)91:7<1272::aid-cncr1128>3.0.co;2-z

  36. 36.

    Zhang J, Patel L, Pienta KJ 2010 Targeting chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 2 (CCL2) as an example of translation of cancer molecular biology to the clinic. Prog. Mol. Biol. Transl. Sci. 95, 31–53. (doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-385071-3.00003-4)

    Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-12-385071-3.00003-4

  37. 37.
  38. 38.

    Hestbech MS, Siersma V, Dirksen A, Pedersen JH, Brodersen J 2011 Participation bias in a randomised trial of screening for lung cancer. Lung Cancer 73, 325–331. (doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2010.12.018)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.lungcan.2010.12.018

  39. 39.
  40. 40.

    Patel D, Akporobaro A, Chinyanganya N, Hackshaw A, Seale C, Spiro SG, Griffiths C 2012 Attitudes to participation in a lung cancer screening trial: a qualitative study. Thorax 67, 418–425. (doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2011-200055)

    Not in our library10.1136/thoraxjnl-2011-200055

  41. 41.

    Silvestri GA, Nietert PJ, Zoller J, Carter C, Bradford D 2007 Attitudes towards screening for lung cancer among smokers and their non-smoking counterparts. Thorax 62, 126–130. (doi:10.1136/thx.2005.056036)

    Not in our library10.1136/thx.2005.056036

  42. 42.

    Waller J, Bartoszek M, Marlow L, Wardle J 2009 Barriers to cervical cancer screening attendance in England: a population-based survey. J. Med. Screen. 16, 199–204. (doi:10.1258/jms.2009.009073)

    Not in our library10.1258/jms.2009.009073

  43. 43.

    Miller DL, Mayfield WR, Luu TD, Helms GA, Muster AR, Beckler VJ 2016 Community-based multidisciplinary computed tomography screening program improves lung cancer survival. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 101, 1864–1869. (doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.11.001)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.11.001

  44. 44.
  45. 45.

    Reuben DB, Bassett LW, Hirsch SH, Jackson CA, Bastani R 2002 A randomized clinical trial to assess the benefit of offering on-site mobile mammography in addition to health education for older women. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 179, 1509–1514. (doi:10.2214/ajr.179.6.1791509)

    Not in our library10.2214/ajr.179.6.1791509

  46. 46.

    Fontana RS, Sanderson DR, Woolner LB, Miller WE, Bernatz PE, Payne WS, Taylor WF 1975 The Mayo lung project for early detection and localization of bronchogenic carcinoma: a status report. Chest 67, 511–522. (doi:10.1378/chest.67.5.511)

    Not in our library10.1378/chest.67.5.511

  47. 47.

    Marcus PM, Bergstralh EJ, Fagerstrom RM, Williams DE, Fontana R, Taylor WF, Prorok PC 2000 Lung cancer mortality in the Mayo lung project: impact of extended follow-up. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 92, 1308–1316. (doi:10.1093/jnci/92.16.1308)

    Not in our library10.1093/jnci/92.16.1308

  48. 48.

    Fontana RS et al. 1991 Screening for lung cancer. A critique of the Mayo lung project. Cancer 67(4 Suppl), 1155–1164.

    Not in our library10.1002/1097-0142(19910215)67:4+<1155::aid-cncr2820671509>3.0.co;2-0

  49. 49.

    Fontana RS, Sanderson DR, Woolner LB, Taylor WF, Miller WE, Muhm JR 1986 Lung cancer screening: the Mayo program. J. Occup. Med. 28, 746–750. (doi:10.1097/00043764-198608000-00038)

    Not in our library10.1097/00043764-198608000-00038

  50. 50.

    Frost JK et al. 1984 Early lung cancer detection: results of the initial (prevalence) radiologic and cytologic screening in the Johns Hopkins study. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 130, 549–554.

    Not in our library10.1164/arrd.1984.130.4.549

  51. 51.

    Melamed MR, Flehinger BJ, Zaman MB, Heelan RT, Perchick WA, Martini N 1984 Screening for early lung cancer. Results of the memorial sloan-kettering study in New York. Chest 86, 44–53. (doi:10.1378/chest.86.1.44)

    Not in our library10.1378/chest.86.1.44

  52. 52.

    Oken MM et al. 2011 Screening by chest radiograph and lung cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) randomized trial. JAMA 306, 1865–1873. (doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1591)

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.2011.1591

  53. 53.

    Zhang Y, Li X, Segars WP, Samei E 2014 Comparison of patient specific dose metrics between chest radiography, tomosynthesis, and CT for adult patients of wide ranging body habitus. Med. Phys. 41, 023901 (doi:10.1118/1.4859315)

    Not in our library10.1118/1.4859315

  54. 54.

    Naidich DP, Marshall CH, Gribbin C, Arams RS, McCauley DI 1990 Low-dose CT of the lungs: preliminary observations. Radiology. 175, 729–731. (doi:10.1148/radiology.175.3.2343122)

    Not in our library10.1148/radiology.175.3.2343122

  55. 55.

    Larke FJ, Kruger RL, Cagnon CH, Flynn MJ, McNitt-Gray MM, Wu X, Judy PF, Cody DD 2011 Estimated radiation dose associated with low-dose chest CT of average-size participants in the National Lung Screening Trial. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 197, 1165–1169. (doi:10.2214/AJR.11.6533)

    Not in our library10.2214/ajr.11.6533

  56. 56.

    Rampinelli C, De Marco P, Origgi D, Maisonneuve P, Casiraghi M, Veronesi G, Spaggiari L, Bellomi M 2017 Exposure to low dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening and risk of cancer: secondary analysis of trial data and risk-benefit analysis. BMJ. 356, j347 (doi:10.1136/bmj.j347)

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.j347

  57. 57.

    Infante M et al. 2009 A randomized study of lung cancer screening with spiral computed tomography: three-year results from the DANTE trial. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 180, 445–453. (doi:10.1164/rccm.200901-0076OC)

    Not in our library10.1164/rccm.200901-0076oc

  58. 58.

    Infante M et al. 2015 Long-term follow-up results of the DANTE trial, a randomized study of lung cancer screening with spiral computed tomography. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 191, 1166–1175. (doi:10.1164/rccm.201408-1475OC)

    Not in our library10.1164/rccm.201408-1475oc

  59. 59.

    Pastorino U et al. 2012 Annual or biennial CT screening versus observation in heavy smokers: 5-year results of the MILD trial. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 21, 308–315. (doi:10.1097/CEJ.0b013e328351e1b6)

    Not in our library10.1097/cej.0b013e328351e1b6

  60. 60.

    Saghir Z et al. 2012 CT screening for lung cancer brings forward early disease. The randomised Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial: status after five annual screening rounds with low-dose CT. Thorax. 67, 296–301. (doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2011-200736)

    Not in our library10.1136/thoraxjnl-2011-200736

  61. 61.

    National Lung Screening Trial Research T. 2011 Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl. J. Med. 365, 395–409. (doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1102873)

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1102873

  62. 62.

    Final Recommendation Statement. 2014 Lung cancer screening: US Preventive Services Task Force. See https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/lung-cancer-screening.

    Not in our library

  63. 63.

    Uramoto H, Tanaka F 2014 Recurrence after surgery in patients with NSCLC. Transl. Lung Cancer Res. 3, 242–249.

    Not in our library10.3978/j.issn.2218-6751.2013.12.05

  64. 64.

    Infante M, Berghmans T, Heuvelmans MA, Hillerdal G, Oudkerk M 2013 Slow-growing lung cancer as an emerging entity: from screening to clinical management. Eur. Respir. J. 42, 1706–1722. (doi:10.1183/09031936.00186212)

    Not in our library10.1183/09031936.00186212

  65. 65.

    Paci E et al. In press. Mortality, survival and incidence rates in the ITALUNG randomised lung cancer screening trial. Thorax.

    Not in our library10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-209825

  66. 66.

    Horeweg N et al. 2013 Volumetric computed tomography screening for lung cancer: three rounds of the NELSON trial. Eur. Respir. J. 42, 1659–1667. (doi:10.1183/09031936.00197712)

    Not in our library10.1183/09031936.00197712

  67. 67.
  68. 68.

    Horeweg N et al. 2014 Detection of lung cancer through low-dose CT screening (NELSON): a prespecified analysis of screening test performance and interval cancers. Lancet Oncol. 15, 1342–1350. (doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70387-0)

    Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70387-0

  69. 69.

    Kovalchik SA et al. 2013 Targeting of low-dose CT screening according to the risk of lung-cancer death. N. Engl. J. Med. 369, 245–254. (doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1301851)

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1301851

  70. 70.

    Tammemagi MC et al. 2013 Selection criteria for lung-cancer screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 368, 728–736. (doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1211776)

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1211776

  71. 71.
  72. 72.

    Cressman S et al. 2017 The cost-effectiveness of high-risk lung cancer screening and drivers of program efficiency. J. Thorac. Oncol. 12, 1210–1222. (doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2017.04.021)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jtho.2017.04.021

  73. 73.
  74. 74.

    Navani N, Spiro SG, Janes SM 2009 Mediastinal staging of NSCLC with endoscopic and endobronchial ultrasound. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 6, 278–286. (doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.39)

    Not in our library10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.39

  75. 75.

    Hehn BT, Haponik E, Rubin HR, Lechtzin N, Diette GB 2003 The relationship between age and process of care and patient tolerance of bronchoscopy. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 51, 917–922. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-2389.2003.51303.x)

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2389.2003.51303.x

  76. 76.

    Du Rand IA et al. 2013 British thoracic society guideline for diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy in adults: accredited by NICE. Thorax 68(Suppl 1), i1–i44. (doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2013-203618)

    Not in our library10.1136/thoraxjnl-2013-203618

  77. 77.

    Rivera MP, Mehta AC, Wahidi MM 2013 Establishing the diagnosis of lung cancer: diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American college of chest physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 143(5 Suppl), e142S (doi:10.1378/chest.12-2353)

    Not in our library10.1378/chest.12-2353

  78. 78.

    Spira A et al. 2007 Airway epithelial gene expression in the diagnostic evaluation of smokers with suspect lung cancer. Nat. Med. 13, 361–366. (doi:10.1038/nm1556)

    Not in our library10.1038/nm1556

  79. 79.

    Whitney DH et al. 2015 Derivation of a bronchial genomic classifier for lung cancer in a prospective study of patients undergoing diagnostic bronchoscopy. BMC Med. Genomics 8, 18 (doi:10.1186/s12920-015-0091-3)

    Not in our library10.1186/s12920-015-0091-3

  80. 80.

    Silvestri GA et al. 2015 A bronchial genomic classifier for the diagnostic evaluation of lung cancer. N Engl. J. Med. 373, 243–251. (doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1504601)

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1504601

  81. 81.

    Moghissi K, Dixon K, Stringer MR 2008 Current indications and future perspective of fluorescence bronchoscopy: a review study. Photodiagnosis Photodyn. Ther. 5, 238–246. (doi:10.1016/j.pdpdt.2009.01.008)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.pdpdt.2009.01.008

  82. 82.

    Qu J, Macaulay C, Lam S, Palcic B 1994 Optical properties of normal and carcinomatous bronchial tissue. Appl. Opt. 33, 7397–7405. (doi:10.1364/AO.33.007397)

    Not in our library10.1364/ao.33.007397

  83. 83.

    Burgh HVD 2003 Early detection of lung cancer and the role of endoscopic fluorescence imaging. Med. Laser Appl. 18, 20–26. (doi:10.1078/1615-1615-00083)

    Not in our library

  84. 84.

    Wang Y, Wang Q, Feng J, Wu Q 2013 Comparison of autofluorescence imaging bronchoscopy and white light bronchoscopy for detection of lung cancers and precancerous lesions. Patient Prefer. Adherence. 7, 621–631.

    Not in our library10.2147/ppa.s46749

  85. 85.

    Edell E, Lam S, Pass H, Miller YE, Sutedja T, Kennedy T, Loewen G, Keith RL 2009 Detection and localization of intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive carcinoma using fluorescence-reflectance bronchoscopy: an international, multicenter clinical trial. J. Thorac. Oncol. 4, 49–54. (doi:10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181914506)

    Not in our library10.1097/jto.0b013e3181914506

  86. 86.

    Spiro SG, Hackshaw A 2016 Research in progress—LungSEARCH: a randomised controlled trial of surveillance for the early detection of lung cancer in a high-risk group. Thorax. 71, 91–93. (doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207433)

    Not in our library10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207433

  87. 87.

    Hayes J, Peruzzi PP, Lawler S 2014 MicroRNAs in cancer: biomarkers, functions and therapy. Trends Mol. Med. 20, 460–469. (doi:10.1016/j.molmed.2014.06.005)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molmed.2014.06.005

  88. 88.

    Takamizawa J et al. 2004 Reduced expression of the let-7 microRNAs in human lung cancers in association with shortened postoperative survival. Cancer Res. 64, 3753–3756. (doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-0637)

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-04-0637

  89. 89.

    Liu ZL, Wang H, Liu J, Wang ZX 2013 MicroRNA-21 (miR-21) expression promotes growth, metastasis, and chemo- or radioresistance in non-small cell lung cancer cells by targeting PTEN. Mol. Cell. Biochem. 372, 35–45. (doi:10.1007/s11010-012-1443-3)

    Not in our library10.1007/s11010-012-1443-3

  90. 90.

    Skog J et al. 2008 Glioblastoma microvesicles transport RNA and proteins that promote tumour growth and provide diagnostic biomarkers. Nat. Cell Biol. 10, 1470–1476. (doi:10.1038/ncb1800)

    Not in our library10.1038/ncb1800

  91. 91.

    Salido-Guadarrama I, Romero-Cordoba S, Peralta-Zaragoza O, Hidalgo-Miranda A, Rodriguez-Dorantes M 2014 MicroRNAs transported by exosomes in body fluids as mediators of intercellular communication in cancer. Onco. Targets Ther. 7, 1327–1338.

    Not in our library10.2147/ott.s61562

  92. 92.
  93. 93.

    Powrozek T, Krawczyk P, Kowalski DM, Winiarczyk K, Olszyna-Serementa M, Milanowski J 2015 Plasma circulating microRNA-944 and microRNA-3662 as potential histologic type-specific early lung cancer biomarkers. Transl. Res. 166, 315–323. (doi:10.1016/j.trsl.2015.05.009)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.trsl.2015.05.009

  94. 94.

    Shen J et al. 2011 Plasma microRNAs as potential biomarkers for non-small-cell lung cancer. Lab. Invest. 91, 579–587. (doi:10.1038/labinvest.2010.194)

    Not in our library10.1038/labinvest.2010.194

  95. 95.
  96. 96.

    Bach PB, Jett JR, Pastorino U, Tockman MS, Swensen SJ, Begg CB 2007 Computed tomography screening and lung cancer outcomes. JAMA. 297, 953–961. (doi:10.1001/jama.297.9.953)

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.297.9.953

  97. 97.

    Boeri M et al. 2011 MicroRNA signatures in tissues and plasma predict development and prognosis of computed tomography detected lung cancer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 3713–3718. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1100048108)

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1100048108

  98. 98.

    Sozzi G et al. 2014 Clinical utility of a plasma-based miRNA signature classifier within computed tomography lung cancer screening: a correlative MILD trial study. J. Clin. Oncol. 32, 768–773. (doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.50.4357)

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2013.50.4357

  99. 99.

    Sestini S et al. 2015 Circulating microRNA signature as liquid-biopsy to monitor lung cancer in low-dose computed tomography screening. Oncotarget 6, 32 868–32 877. (doi:10.18632/oncotarget.5210)

    Not in our library10.18632/oncotarget.5210

  100. 100.

    Coulie PG, Van den Eynde BJ, van der Bruggen P, Boon T 2014 Tumour antigens recognized by T lymphocytes: at the core of cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 14, 135–146. (doi:10.1038/nrc3670)

    Not in our library10.1038/nrc3670

  101. 101.

    Matsushita H et al. 2012 Cancer exome analysis reveals a T-cell-dependent mechanism of cancer immunoediting. Nature 482, 400–404. (doi:10.1038/nature10755)

    Not in our library10.1038/nature10755

  102. 102.

    Medler TR, Cotechini T, Coussens LM 2015 Immune response to cancer therapy: mounting an effective antitumor response and mechanisms of resistance. Trends Cancer 1, 66–75. (doi:10.1016/j.trecan.2015.07.008)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.trecan.2015.07.008

  103. 103.

    Zaenker P, Gray ES, Ziman MR 2016 Autoantibody production in cancer—the humoral immune response toward autologous antigens in cancer patients. Autoimmun Rev. 15, 477–483. (doi:10.1016/j.autrev.2016.01.017)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.autrev.2016.01.017

  104. 104.

    Mack U, Ukena D, Montenarh M, Sybrecht GW 2000 Serum anti-p53 antibodies in patients with lung cancer. Oncol. Rep. 7, 669–674. (doi:10.3892/or.7.3.669)

    Not in our library10.3892/or.7.3.669

  105. 105.

    Lubin R, Zalcman G, Bouchet L, Tredanel J, Legros Y, Cazals D, Hirsch A, Soussi T 1995 Serum p53 antibodies as early markers of lung cancer. Nat. Med. 1, 701–702. (doi:10.1038/nm0795-701)

    Not in our library10.1038/nm0795-701

  106. 106.

    Zhong L, Coe SP, Stromberg AJ, Khattar NH, Jett JR, Hirschowitz EA 2006 Profiling tumor-associated antibodies for early detection of non-small cell lung cancer. J. Thorac. Oncol. 1, 513–519. (doi:10.1016/S1556-0864(15)30352-X)

    Not in our library

  107. 107.

    Boyle P et al. 2011 Clinical validation of an autoantibody test for lung cancer. Ann. Oncol. 22, 383–389. (doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq361)

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdq361

  108. 108.

    Lam S et al. 2011 EarlyCDT-Lung: an immunobiomarker test as an aid to early detection of lung cancer. Cancer Prev. Res. 4, 1126–1134. (doi:10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-10-0328)

    Not in our library10.1158/1940-6207.capr-10-0328

  109. 109.

    Chapman CJ et al. 2011 Immunobiomarkers in small cell lung cancer: potential early cancer signals. Clin. Cancer Res. 17, 1474–1480. (doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-1363)

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-10-1363

  110. 110.
  111. 111.

    Jett JR, Peek LJ, Fredericks L, Jewell W, Pingleton WW, Robertson JF 2014 Audit of the autoantibody test, EarlyCDT(R)-lung, in 1600 patients: an evaluation of its performance in routine clinical practice. Lung Cancer 83, 51–55. (doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2013.10.008)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.lungcan.2013.10.008

  112. 112.

    ECLS. 2015 Early cancer detection test: lung cancer Scotland. See http://www.eclsstudy.org/study-information.

    Not in our library

  113. 113.

    Trudgen K, Khattar NH, Bensadoun E, Arnold S, Stromberg AJ, Hirschowitz EA 2014 Autoantibody profiling for lung cancer screening longitudinal retrospective analysis of CT screening cohorts. PLoS ONE 9, e87947 (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087947)

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0087947

  114. 114.

    Heitzer E, Ulz P, Geigl JB 2015 Circulating tumor DNA as a liquid biopsy for cancer. Clin. Chem. 61, 112–123. (doi:10.1373/clinchem.2014.222679)

    Not in our library10.1373/clinchem.2014.222679

  115. 115.

    Newman AM et al. 2014 An ultrasensitive method for quantitating circulating tumor DNA with broad patient coverage. Nat. Med. 20, 548–554. (doi:10.1038/nm.3519)

    Not in our library10.1038/nm.3519

  116. 116.

    Gormally E et al. 2006 TP53 and KRAS2 mutations in plasma DNA of healthy subjects and subsequent cancer occurrence: a prospective study. Cancer Res. 66, 6871–6876. (doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-4556)

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-05-4556

  117. 117.

    Fernandez-Cuesta L et al. 2016 Identification of circulating tumor DNA for the early detection of small-cell lung cancer. EBioMedicine 10, 117–123. (doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.06.032)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.06.032

  118. 118.

    Sozzi G et al. 2003 Quantification of free circulating DNA as a diagnostic marker in lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 21, 3902–3908. (doi:10.1200/JCO.2003.02.006)

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2003.02.006

  119. 119.

    Sozzi G et al. 2009 Plasma DNA quantification in lung cancer computed tomography screening: five-year results of a prospective study. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 179, 69–74. (doi:10.1164/rccm.200807-1068OC)

    Not in our library10.1164/rccm.200807-1068oc

  120. 120.

    Ulivi P et al. 2013 MMP-7 and fcDNA serum levels in early NSCLC and idiopathic interstitial pneumonia: preliminary study. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 14, 24 097–24 112. (doi:10.3390/ijms141224097)

    Not in our library10.3390/ijms141224097

  121. 121.

    Abbosh C et al. 2017 Phylogenetic ctDNA analysis depicts early-stage lung cancer evolution. Nature 545, 446–451. (doi:10.1038/nature22364)

    Not in our library10.1038/nature22364

  122. 122.

    Hagiwara N et al. 2006 Quantitative detection of p53 mutations in plasma DNA from tobacco smokers. Cancer Res. 66, 8309–8317. (doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-0991)

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-06-0991

  123. 123.

    Yadav VK, DeGregori J, De S 2016 The landscape of somatic mutations in protein coding genes in apparently benign human tissues carries signatures of relaxed purifying selection. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 2075–2084. (doi:10.1093/nar/gkw086)

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkw086

  124. 124.

    Kolbl AC, Jeschke U, Andergassen U 2016 The significance of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition for circulating tumor cells. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 17, 1308 (doi:10.3390/ijms17081308)

    Not in our library10.3390/ijms17081308

  125. 125.

    Labelle M, Hynes RO 2012 The initial hours of metastasis: the importance of cooperative host–tumor cell interactions during hematogenous dissemination. Cancer Discov. 2, 1091–1099. (doi:10.1158/2159-8290.CD-12-0329)

    Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-12-0329

  126. 126.
  127. 127.

    Yang MH, Imrali A, Heeschen C 2015 Circulating cancer stem cells: the importance to select. Chin J Cancer Res. 27, 437–449.

    Not in our library10.3978/j.issn.1000-9604.2015.04.08

  128. 128.

    Hodgkinson CL et al. 2014 Tumorigenicity and genetic profiling of circulating tumor cells in small-cell lung cancer. Nat. Med. 20, 897–903. (doi:10.1038/nm.3600)

    Not in our library10.1038/nm.3600

  129. 129.

    Barriere G, Fici P, Gallerani G, Fabbri F, Zoli W, Rigaud M 2014 Circulating tumor cells and epithelial, mesenchymal and stemness markers: characterization of cell subpopulations. Ann. Transl. Med. 2, 109.

    Not in our library10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2014.10.04

  130. 130.

    Hayes DF et al. 2006 Circulating tumor cells at each follow-up time point during therapy of metastatic breast cancer patients predict progression-free and overall survival. Clin. Cancer Res. 12(14 Pt 1), 4218–4224. (doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-2821)

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-05-2821

  131. 131.

    de Bono JS et al. 2008 Circulating tumor cells predict survival benefit from treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 6302–6309. (doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0872)

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-08-0872

  132. 132.

    Cohen SJ et al. 2008 Relationship of circulating tumor cells to tumor response, progression-free survival, and overall survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 3213–3221. (doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.15.8923)

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2007.15.8923

  133. 133.

    Hou JM et al. 2012 Clinical significance and molecular characteristics of circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor microemboli in patients with small-cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 525–532. (doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.33.3716)

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2010.33.3716

  134. 134.

    Krebs MG et al. 2012 Analysis of circulating tumor cells in patients with non-small cell lung cancer using epithelial marker-dependent and -independent approaches. J. Thorac. Oncol. 7, 306–315. (doi:10.1097/JTO.0b013e31823c5c16)

    Not in our library10.1097/jto.0b013e31823c5c16

  135. 135.

    Crosbie PA et al. 2016 Circulating tumor cells detected in the tumor-draining pulmonary vein are associated with disease recurrence after surgical resection of NSCLC. J. Thorac. Oncol. 11, 1793–1797. (doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2016.06.017)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jtho.2016.06.017

  136. 136.

    Tanaka F et al. 2009 Circulating tumor cell as a diagnostic marker in primary lung cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 15, 6980–6986. (doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1095)

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-09-1095

  137. 137.

    Hofman V et al. 2011 Detection of circulating tumor cells as a prognostic factor in patients undergoing radical surgery for non-small-cell lung carcinoma: comparison of the efficacy of the cell search assay and the isolation by size of epithelial tumor cell method. Int. J. Cancer. 129, 1651–1660. (doi:10.1002/ijc.25819)

    Not in our library10.1002/ijc.25819

  138. 138.
  139. 139.

    Lou J, Ben S, Yang G, Liang X, Wang X, Ni S, Han B, Minna JD 2013 Quantification of rare circulating tumor cells in non-small cell lung cancer by ligand-targeted PCR. PLoS ONE 8, e80458 (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080458)

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0080458

  140. 140.
  141. 141.

    Marek W et al. 2001 Can semi-automated image cytometry on induced sputum become a screening tool for lung cancer? Evaluation of quantitative semi-automated sputum cytometry on radon- and uranium-exposed workers. Eur. Respir. J. 18, 942–950. (doi:10.1183/09031936.01.00024401)

    Not in our library10.1183/09031936.01.00024401

  142. 142.

    Felten MK, Knoll L, Schikowsky C, Das M, Feldhaus C, Hering KG 2014 Is it useful to combine sputum cytology and low-dose spiral computed tomography for early detection of lung cancer in formerly asbestos-exposed power industry workers? J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. 9, 14 (doi:10.1186/1745-6673-9-14)

    Not in our library10.1186/1745-6673-9-14

  143. 143.

    Xing L, Todd NW, Yu L, Fang H, Jiang F 2010 Early detection of squamous cell lung cancer in sputum by a panel of microRNA markers. Mod. Pathol. 23, 1157–1164. (doi:10.1038/modpathol.2010.111)

    Not in our library10.1038/modpathol.2010.111

  144. 144.

    Yu L et al. 2010 Early detection of lung adenocarcinoma in sputum by a panel of microRNA markers. Int. J. Cancer. 127, 2870–2878. (doi:10.1002/ijc.25289)

    Not in our library10.1002/ijc.25289

  145. 145.

    Xing L, Su J, Guarnera MA, Zhang H, Cai L, Zhou R, Stass SA, Jiang F 2015 Sputum microRNA biomarkers for identifying lung cancer in indeterminate solitary pulmonary nodules. Clin. Cancer Res. 21, 484–489. (doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-1873)

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-1873

  146. 146.

    Hubers AJ, Prinsen CF, Sozzi G, Witte BI, Thunnissen E 2013 Molecular sputum analysis for the diagnosis of lung cancer. Br. J. Cancer. 109, 530–537. (doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.393)

    Not in our library10.1038/bjc.2013.393

  147. 147.

    Somers VA, Pietersen AM, Theunissen PH, Thunnissen FB 1998 Detection of K-ras point mutations in sputum from patients with adenocarcinoma of the lung by point-EXACCT. J. Clin. Oncol. 16, 3061–3068. (doi:10.1200/JCO.1998.16.9.3061)

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.1998.16.9.3061

  148. 148.

    Baryshnikova E et al. 2008 Molecular alterations in spontaneous sputum of cancer-free heavy smokers: results from a large screening program. Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 1913–1919. (doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1741)

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-07-1741

  149. 149.

    NICE. 2014 Measuring fractional exhaled nitric oxide concentration in asthma: NIOX MINO, NIOX VERO and NObreath 2014. See https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/DG12/chapter/1-Recommendations.

    Not in our library

  150. 150.

    McCulloch M, Jezierski T, Broffman M, Hubbard A, Turner K, Janecki T 2006 Diagnostic accuracy of canine scent detection in early- and late-stage lung and breast cancers. Integr. Cancer Ther. 5, 30–39. (doi:10.1177/1534735405285096)

    Not in our library10.1177/1534735405285096

  151. 151.

    Ehmann R, Boedeker E, Friedrich U, Sagert J, Dippon J, Friedel G, Walles T 2012 Canine scent detection in the diagnosis of lung cancer: revisiting a puzzling phenomenon. Eur. Respir. J. 39, 669–676. (doi:10.1183/09031936.00051711)

    Not in our library10.1183/09031936.00051711

  152. 152.

    Dent AG, Sutedja TG, Zimmerman PV 2013 Exhaled breath analysis for lung cancer. J. Thorac Dis. 5(Suppl 5), S540–S550.

    Not in our library10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2013.08.44

  153. 153.

    Westhoff M, Litterst P, Freitag L, Urfer W, Bader S, Baumbach JI 2009 Ion mobility spectrometry for the detection of volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath of patients with lung cancer: results of a pilot study. Thorax 64, 744–748. (doi:10.1136/thx.2008.099465)

    Not in our library10.1136/thx.2008.099465

  154. 154.

    Phillips M et al. 2015 Blinded validation of breath biomarkers of lung cancer, a potential ancillary to chest CT screening. PLoS ONE 10, e0142484 (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0142484)

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0142484

  155. 155.

    D'Amico A, Pennazza G, Santonico M, Martinelli E, Roscioni C, Galluccio G, Paolesse R, Di Natale C 2010 An investigation on electronic nose diagnosis of lung cancer. Lung Cancer 68, 170–176. (doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2009.11.003)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.lungcan.2009.11.003

  156. 156.

    Machado RF et al. 2005 Detection of lung cancer by sensor array analyses of exhaled breath. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 171, 1286–1291. (doi:10.1164/rccm.200409-1184OC)

    Not in our library10.1164/rccm.200409-1184oc

  157. 157.

    Taiwo EO, Yorio JT, Yan J, Gerber DE 2012 How have we diagnosed early-stage lung cancer without radiographic screening? A contemporary single-center experience. PLoS ONE 7, e52313 (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052313)

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0052313

  158. 158.

    Pinsky PF, Berg CD 2012 Applying the national lung screening trial eligibility criteria to the US population: what percent of the population and of incident lung cancers would be covered? J. Med. Screen. 19, 154–156. (doi:10.1258/jms.2012.012010)

    Not in our library10.1258/jms.2012.012010

  159. 159.

    Zheng X et al. 2014 Survival outcome after stereotactic body radiation therapy and surgery for stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 90, 603–611. (doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.05.055)

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.05.055

Cited by papers we hold 17

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.