HANSE - Holistic Implementation Study Assessing a Northern German Interdisciplinary Lung Cancer Screening Effort (HANSE)

June 8, 2021 updated by: Hannover Medical School

HANSE - Holistic Implementation Study Assessing a Northern German Interdisciplinary Lung Cancer Screening Effort, Population-based Screening Study -Prospective, Randomized Comparator Controlled

The HANSE study is primarily intended as a pilot to provide evidence that a holistic and effective lung cancer screening program can be implemented in Germany and that such a screening program can be integrated in the current infrastructure of certified lung cancer centers.

Study Overview

Status

Recruiting

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Germany has a long history of offering screening programs for cancers, such as breast, colorectal, and, more recently, cervical and skin cancer. Screening for lung cancer, however, which causes more deaths than any other cancer in men and is the second leading cancer death in women (not far behind breast cancer), has not been implemented to date. Only very recently, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (IQWiG) in a preliminary assessment of low-dose CT screening, concluded that the benefits from screening outweigh potential risks. However, an implementation of a national lung cancer screening program, which would be covered by the general health insurance, will likely not be implemented before 2022.

Nonetheless, the IQWiG report also comments on important criteria for implementing lung cancer screening in Germany using low-dose CT:

  1. It would be necessary to determine criteria that define a high-risk population. Various risk forecasting models are currently being propagated to enable a more precise selection of high-risk individuals. Their reliability and repeatability needs to be checked.
  2. Integration of access to a smoking cessation program.
  3. Quality assurance measures must be taken into account, including standardized protocols for the evaluation of the CT images and the subsequent follow-up checks as well as the invasive diagnostic tissue sampling procedures. The HANSE study is primarily intended as a pilot to provide evidence that a holistic and effective lung cancer screening program can be implemented in Germany and that such a screening program can be integrated in the current infrastructure of certified lung cancer centers.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Anticipated)

12100

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact Backup

  • Name: Heiko Hartleb
  • Phone Number: +49 641 94436 241
  • Email: heh@alcedis.de

Study Locations

    • Niedersachsen
      • Hannover, Niedersachsen, Germany, 30625
    • Schleswig-Holstein
      • Großhansdorf, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, 22927
        • Recruiting
        • LungenClinic Grosshansdorf
        • Contact:
      • Lübeck, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, 23538
        • Recruiting
        • Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein
        • Contact:

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

55 years to 79 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Male and female subjects aged 55-79 years
  2. Current or former smokers
  3. Subjects with calculated risk score PLCOM2012 ≥1.58% (6 yrs.) or NELSON inclusion criteria (current or former smokers [those who had quit ≤10 years ago] who had smoked >15 cigarettes a day for >25 years or >10 cigarettes a day for >30 years).
  4. Able and willing to give written informed consent In addition, non-qualifying subjects fulfilling inclusion criteria 1 (age), 2 (smoking history) and 4 (consent), but do not meet the inclusion criterion 3 (risk too low) will be asked to volunteer by contributing long-term outcome data informing of the development of lung cancer or death from lung cancer (about n=7100 randomly selected from all 3 centers, low-risk group). These subjects will be contacted via mail after a minimum of 5 year follow up to inquire if they developed lung cancer in the time between their recruitment and present. Non-responders will be followed by local registries and by phone. New lung cancer cases will be verified using official hospital or cancer registry documents.

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Comorbidity, which would unequivocally contraindicate either screening or treatment if lung cancer is detected.
  2. History of chest CT within the past year preceding the invitation.
  3. Inability to undergo non-contrast CT (e.g. ≥ 200 kg body weight, inability to lie flat).
  4. Pregnancy
  5. Risk of non-compliance with study procedures.

    • Unable to give written consent
    • Patient's inability to fill in the questionnaire self-dependent
    • Limited knowledge of the German language
    • Inability to travel, residents of care facilities, etc.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Screening
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Other: Reporting group (coronary calcium score and emphysema score)
Coronary calcium score and emphysema score are reported to subjects
Low-dose computed tomography with lung nodule evaluation (LungRADS1.1, highrisk score group), randomized reporting of coronary artery calcium score and emphysema score
Other: Reporting group (coronary calcium score only)
Only coronary calcium score is reported to subjects
Low-dose computed tomography with lung nodule evaluation (LungRADS1.1, highrisk score group), randomized reporting of coronary artery calcium score and emphysema score
Other: Reporting group (emphysema score only)
Only emphysema score is reported to subjects
Low-dose computed tomography with lung nodule evaluation (LungRADS1.1, highrisk score group), randomized reporting of coronary artery calcium score and emphysema score
Other: Non-reporting group
Coronary calcium score and emphysema score are not reported to subjects
Low-dose computed tomography with lung nodule evaluation (LungRADS1.1, highrisk score group), randomized reporting of coronary artery calcium score and emphysema score
No Intervention: Low-risk group
No CT screening, collection of health data only

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Primary endpoint
Time Frame: 5 years
Positive predictive value (PPV) for lung cancer detection with different inclusion methods (NELSON vs. PLCO) after 2 screening rounds.
5 years

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Key secondary endpoint 1
Time Frame: 1 year
Proportion of individuals selected for screening within the high-risk population.
1 year
Key secondary endpoint 2
Time Frame: 5 years
Proportion of lung cancers detected with different inclusion methods (NELSON vs. PLCO) within the overall study population after 5 years.
5 years
Key secondary endpoint 3
Time Frame: 5 years
Proportion of lung cancers detected with in the high-risk population after 5 years.
5 years
Key secondary endpoint 4
Time Frame: 5 years
Specificity within the overall population after 5-year follow-up.
5 years
Key secondary endpoint 5
Time Frame: 5 years
Sensitivity within the overall population after 5-year follow-up.
5 years
Additional secondary endpoint 1
Time Frame: 1 year
Rate of initiation of cardiovascular treatments (in particular lipid-lowering) in the calcium score reporting group vs. the non-reporting group after year 1 of study.
1 year
Additional secondary endpoint 2
Time Frame: 1 year
Efficiency of nodule management algorithms (LungRads1.1 + PanCan) will be evaluated according to the number of patients sorted in the category (a) "Next surveillance scan" AND the number of patients with lung cancer sorted into category (b) "early recall scan", or (c) "diagnostic evaluation".
1 year
Additional secondary endpoint 3.1
Time Frame: 1 year
Success of screening program. Based on all individuals enrolled. Definition of success is calculated using Response rate.
1 year
Additional secondary endpoint 3.2
Time Frame: 1 year
Success of screening program. Based on all individuals enrolled. Definition of success is calculated using Reliability of PLCO risk scoring (self-reported vs. on site assessment).
1 year
Additional secondary endpoint 3.3
Time Frame: 1 year
Success of screening program. Based on all individuals enrolled. Definition of success is calculated using Percentage of subjects receiving an adequate low-dose CT scan and report according to DRG guidelines (number of diagnostic CTs/number of all CTs).
1 year
Additional secondary endpoint 3.4
Time Frame: 1 year
Success of screening program. Based on all individuals enrolled. Definition of success is calculated using Percentage of subjects receiving adequate follow-up procedures.
1 year
Additional secondary endpoint 4.1
Time Frame: 1 year
Quality of screening program: CT reading performance (2nd reader vs. CAD vs. AI)
1 year
Additional secondary endpoint 4.2
Time Frame: 1 year
Quality of screening program: Quality of lung nodule management
1 year
Additional secondary endpoint 4.3
Time Frame: 1 year
Quality of screening program: Frequency of detection and management of incidental findings from low dose chest CT (emphysema, coronary heart disease, etc.)
1 year
Additional secondary endpoint 4.4
Time Frame: 1 year
Quality of screening program: LDCT dose management
1 year
Additional secondary endpoint 5
Time Frame: 1 year
Smoking cessation: Success of smoking cessation counseling based on number of participants quitting with or without revealing additional health risks (emphysema score, coronary calcium score or both).
1 year
Additional secondary endpoint 6.1
Time Frame: 1 year
Identification of blood-based biomarkers for early detection of lung tumors: Blood collection and evaluation of various blood-based epigenetic biomarkers in positive LDCT cases with subsequent biopsy on the positive predictive value of the LDCT test.
1 year
Additional secondary endpoint 6.2
Time Frame: 1 year
Identification of exhalation-based biomarkers for early detection of lung tumors: Collection of breath condensate and evaluation of various exhalation-based epigenetic biomarkers in positive LDCT cases with subsequent biopsy on the positive predictive value of the LDCT test.
1 year
Additional secondary endpoint 7.1
Time Frame: 1 year
Cost-effectiveness analysis: Main objectives of the modelling study are to investigate the impact of different components of LDCT lung cancer screening on the long-term all-cause mortality and cost-effectiveness. Key components include risk score-based selection criteria, nodule management protocols, threshold values of imaging biomarkers for cardio-vascular diseases and COPD, and inclusion of smoking cessation programs (performed by Center for Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH).
1 year
Additional secondary endpoint 7.2
Time Frame: 1 year
Cost-effectiveness analysis: Comparison of patient recruitment strategies: Cost-effectiveness of register-based mailing campaign vs. GP referrals in terms of recruitment of qualified screening subjects (Center for Health Economics Research Hannover - CHERH).
1 year

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Study Director: Jens Vogel-Claussen, Prof. Dr., Hannover Medical School

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

May 26, 2021

Primary Completion (Anticipated)

June 1, 2026

Study Completion (Anticipated)

January 1, 2028

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

May 10, 2021

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 28, 2021

First Posted (Actual)

June 4, 2021

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

June 9, 2021

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 8, 2021

Last Verified

June 1, 2021

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Lung Cancer

Clinical Trials on Low-dose CT screening

3
Subscribe