Abstract
Introduction Lung cancer patients often have a poor prognosis, due to various factors that play into the diagnosis, such as timeframe, early detection, and progression. The rate of patients with advanced-stage lung cancer is often high due to the inability to be diagnosed early. The lack of screening, therefore, increases the mortality rate of lung cancer. High mortality rate is also attributed to advanced lung cancer cases that are undiagnosed due to the lack of symptoms in patients early in disease acquisition.
Methods This review explores lung cancer screening methods adopted around the world and those with the most promising standardizations. Criteria used to filter articles included lung cancer methods using biomarkers, research conducted in the United States within the past 10 years, screening methods observed in a clinical setting, and patients with primary lung cancer. Some practices that can be utilized to improve screening for lung cancer may involve using genetic markers to identify patients possessing genetic makeup associated with lung cancer.
Results Our study included 32 articles in our review calculating the sensitivity and specificity for a variety of potential biomarkers including: 1) Volatile organic compounds has a specificity of 80% and sensitivity of 80% 2) Circulating tumor DNA has a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 96% 3) miRNA molecules (miR-146-5p, miR-324-5p, miR-223-3p, and miR-223-5p) displayed sensitivities of 93%, 94%, 96%, and 95% respectively, with specificities of 33%, 23%, 27%, and 26% respectively 4) methylation beads specific genomic sequences (SOX17, TAC1, HOXA7, CDO1, HOXA9, and ZFP42) with sensitivities of 84%, 86%, 63%, 78%, 93%, and 87% respectively when found in sputum and 73%, 76%, 34%, 65%, 86%, and 84% respectively when found in serum. Specificities were calculated at 88%, 75%, 92%, 67%, 8%, and 63% respectively when found in sputum, and 84%, 78%, 92%, 74%, 46%, and 54% respectively in serum 5) Ga-Alfatide II scans were found to have a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 85% 6) Combined score had a sensitivity of 78% and specificity of 50% 7) WT-IDH had a sensitivity of 63% and specificity of 93%.
Discussion In such a high-risk patient population, cautious preventative measures can be used such as lifestyle choices and environmental exposures that are known risk factors. Informed physicians will be able to provide care directed toward minimizing patient’s modifiable risk factors to lower incidence rate and routine imaging offered when there is an index of suspicion to minimize mortality rate in high-risk populations. This review highlighted practices such as circulating tumor DNA and a Ga-Alfatide II CT/PET scan that can be utilized to improve screening in the future and further dissected errors made in lung cancer diagnosis.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest: The authors have no competing interests
Funding: No funding was provided
The paper has been revised to remove the personal contact information of the authors
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
