Biomarkers of lung cancer for screening and in never-smokers-a narrative review

Edward K H Stephens,Jazmin Guayco Sigcha,Kenneth Lopez-Loo,Ian A Yang,Henry M Marshall,Kwun M Fong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-23-291

2023-10-31

Abstract:Background and objective: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, partially attributed to late-stage diagnoses. In order to mitigate this, lung cancer screening (LCS) of high-risk patients is performed using low dose computed tomography (CT) scans, however this method is burdened by high false-positive rates and radiation exposure for patients. Further, screening programs focus on individuals with heavy smoking histories, and as such, never-smokers who may otherwise be at risk of lung cancer are often overlooked. To resolve these limitations, biomarkers have been posited as potential supplements or replacements to low-dose CT, and as such, a large body of research in this area has been produced. However, comparatively little information exists on their clinical efficacy and how this compares to current LCS strategies. Methods: Here we conduct a search and narrative review of current literature surrounding biomarkers of lung cancer to supplement LCS, and biomarkers of lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS). Key content and findings: Many potential biomarkers of lung cancer have been identified with varying levels of sensitivity, specificity, clinical efficacy, and supporting evidence. Of the markers identified, multi-target panels of circulating microRNAs, lipids, and metabolites are likely the most clinically efficacious markers to aid current screening programs, as these provide the highest sensitivity and specificity for lung cancer detection. However, circulating lipid and metabolite levels are known to vary in numerous systemic pathologies, highlighting the need for further validation in large cohort randomised studies. Conclusions: Lung cancer biomarkers is a fast-expanding area of research and numerous biomarkers with potential clinical applications have been identified. However, in all cases the level of evidence supporting clinical efficacy is not yet at a level at which it can be translated to clinical practice. The priority now should be to validate existing candidate markers in appropriate clinical contexts and work to integrating these into clinical practice.