Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review to Update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force RecommendationFREE
Publication: Annals of Internal Medicine
Volume 159, Number 6
Submit a Comment
Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest. Comments are moderated. Please see our information for authorsregarding comments on an Annals publication.
Abstract
Background:
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Because early-stage lung cancer is associated with lower mortality than late-stage disease, early detection and treatment may be beneficial.
Purpose:
To update the 2004 review of screening for lung cancer for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, focusing on screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).
Data Sources:
MEDLINE (2000 to 31 May 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through the fourth quarter of 2012), Scopus, and reference lists.
Study Selection:
English-language randomized, controlled trials or cohort studies that evaluated LDCT screening for lung cancer.
Data Extraction:
One reviewer extracted study data about participants, design, analysis, follow-up, and results, and a second reviewer checked extractions. Two reviewers rated study quality using established criteria.
Data Synthesis:
Four trials reported results of LDCT screening among patients with smoking exposure. One large good-quality trial reported that screening was associated with significant reductions in lung cancer (20%) and all-cause (6.7%) mortality. Three small European trials showed no benefit of screening. Harms included radiation exposure, overdiagnosis, and a high rate of false-positive findings that typically were resolved with further imaging. Smoking cessation was not affected. Incidental findings were common.
Limitations:
Three trials were underpowered and of insufficient duration to evaluate screening effectiveness. Overdiagnosis, an important harm of screening, is of uncertain magnitude. No studies reported results in women or minority populations.
Conclusion:
Strong evidence shows that LDCT screening can reduce lung cancer and all-cause mortality. The harms associated with screening must be balanced with the benefits.
Primary Funding Source:
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
In the United States, lung cancer is the third most common cancer among men and women and is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths (1), accounting for almost 27% of all cancer-related deaths. Current estimates suggest that almost 7% of persons born today will be diagnosed with lung cancer in their lifetime, and almost 6% will die of it (2–4). Among heavy smokers, lung cancer accounts for 33% of overall mortality (5). Seventy-five percent of patients with lung cancer present with symptoms due to incurable advanced local or metastatic disease (6).
Approximately 85% of lung cancer cases in the United States are attributable to smoking (7, 8), and a high percentage occurs in former smokers because risk continues after smoking stops (9–11). Approximately 20% of Americans currently smoke, and many more are former smokers (12); thus, lung cancer will remain a major public health problem in the United States for decades. Other persons at increased risk include older adults and those with a family history of lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pulmonary fibrosis (8, 13, 14), and certain environmental (15–18) and occupational (8, 14) exposures. Some studies suggest that women are at higher risk than men with similar exposures (7, 16, 19, 20).
In 2004, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) judged the evidence about the effectiveness of lung cancer screening with chest radiography or low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) as insufficient (21). This systematic review updates evidence on the effectiveness and harms of LDCT screening for lung cancer for the USPSTF.
Methods
Key Questions and Analytic Framework
We developed and followed a standard protocol. A technical report details those methods and includes search strategies and additional evidence tables (22). Using established methods (23), the USPSTF, with input from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), formulated key questions addressing the benefits and harms of screening for lung cancer with LDCT. Investigators created an analytic framework incorporating the key questions and outlining the patient populations, interventions, outcomes, and harms of LDCT screening for lung cancer (Appendix Figure 1). The target population includes asymptomatic current and former adult smokers.
Appendix Figure 1. Analytic framework.
Data Sources and Searches
In conjunction with a research librarian, investigators searched MEDLINE (2000 to 31 May 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through the fourth quarter 2012), reference lists, and Scopus for relevant English-language studies and systematic reviews.
Data Extraction and Quality Assessment
For each included study, an investigator abstracted details about the patient population, study design, screening procedure, imaging assessment, analysis, follow-up, and results; data were confirmed by a second investigator. Using predefined criteria developed by the USPSTF (23), 2 investigators independently rated the quality of trials, reporting results for both comparison groups (LDCT vs. chest radiography or usual care) as good, fair, or poor; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. When studies reported findings in more than 1 article, data from the most recent publication were used unless unique data were presented in a previous publication.
Data Synthesis and Analysis
We did not perform a meta-analysis because of the substantial heterogeneity in the interventions, follow-up intervals, and quality of the trials. We created forest plots to display the findings and summarize the data qualitatively. We assessed the overall quality of the body of evidence for each key question (good, fair, or poor) using methods developed by the USPSTF on the basis of the number, quality, and size of studies; consistency of results; and directness of evidence (23).
Role of the Funding Source
This research was funded by the AHRQ under a contract to support the work of the USPSTF. Investigators worked with USPSTF members and AHRQ staff to develop and refine the scope, analytic framework, and key questions; resolve issues arising during the project; and finalize the report. Staff from the AHRQ provided project oversight; reviewed the draft report; and distributed it for peer review, which included representatives of professional societies and federal agencies. The AHRQ performed a final review of the manuscript to ensure that the analysis met methodological standards but had no role in study selection, quality assessment, synthesis, or development of conclusions. The investigators are solely responsible for the content and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The Department of Veterans Affairs did not have a role in the conduct of the study; the collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the preparation of the manuscript.
Results
A total of 8215 abstracts was reviewed; 67 full-text articles met inclusion criteria for one of the key questions and were included (Appendix Figure 2) (20, 24–89).
Appendix Figure 2. Summary of evidence search and selection.
COSMOS = Continuing Observation of Smoking Subjects; DANTE = Detection and Screening of Early Lung Cancer by Novel Imaging Technology and Molecular Essays; DLCST = Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial; I-ELCAP = International Early Lung Cancer Action Program; LSS = Lung Screening Study; LUSI = Lung Cancer Screening Intervention; MILD = Multicentric Italian Lung Detection; NELSON = Dutch–Belgian Randomised Controlled Trial for Lung Cancer Screening in High-Risk Subjects; NLST = National Lung Screening Trial; PALCAD = ProActive Lung Cancer Detection; PLCO = Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian; PLuSS = Pittsburgh Lung Screening Study; RCT = randomized, controlled trial.
* Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
† Identified from reference lists or hand searching and suggested by experts.
‡ Studies that provided data and contributed to the body of evidence were considered included.
§ In the final report (24); not reported in this review.
Trials of LDCT
We identified 7 randomized, controlled trials that reported results of LDCT screening but limited our review of effectiveness to the 4 (39, 53, 57, 60) that reported results in the intervention and control groups (Appendix Table 1). The Table shows the demographic characteristics of study participants, screening strategies, and quality ratings. The full report describes screening programs, follow-up protocols, and procedures (22).
The NLST (National Lung Screening Trial) was a good-quality trial comparing 3 annual LDCT scans with 3 annual single-view posterior–anterior chest radiographs (53, 88). The trial was conducted at 33 U.S. sites and included asymptomatic men and women aged 55 to 74 years who were current or former (<15 years since quitting) smokers (≥30 pack-years): 26 722 were randomly assigned to LDCT and 26 732 to chest radiography.
The DANTE (Detection and Screening of Early Lung Cancer by Novel Imaging Technology and Molecular Essays) trial (39, 40) was a fair-quality Italian trial comparing the addition of LDCT with usual care without LDCT. Male current or former smokers (≥20 pack-years) without significant comorbid conditions aged 60 to 74 years were included: 1276 were randomly assigned to LDCT and 1196 to usual care. All participants had a baseline clinical interview and examination, chest radiography, and 3-day sputum cytology; those in the intervention group also received LDCT. All participants were followed annually with clinical interviews and physical examinations focused on detecting lung cancer; the intervention group also received 4 annual LDCTs.
The DLCST (Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial) (60) was a fair-quality, single-center trial comparing LDCT with no lung cancer screening. The study was planned to last 5 years, with a baseline LDCT followed by 4 annual LDCTs. The study population included healthy men and women aged 50 to 70 years who were current or former smokers (≥20 pack-years) and were able to walk up at least 36 stairs without stopping. Former smokers must have quit after age 50 years and less than 10 years before enrollment. All participants had baseline and annual pulmonary function tests and completed health questionnaires. A total of 2052 participants was randomly assigned to LDCT and 2052 to usual care.
The MILD (Multicentric Italian Lung Detection) study was a poor-quality, single-center trial comparing annual or biennial LDCT with no lung cancer screening (57). The trial included men and women aged 49 years or older who were current or former (quit <10 years ago) smokers (≥20 pack-years) with no history of cancer in the previous 5 years. A total of 1190 participants was randomly assigned to annual LDCT, 1186 to biennial LDCT, and 1723 to usual care.
Effectiveness of Screening for Lung Cancer With LDCT
Participants in the DLCST and the MILD study were younger and had less smoking exposure than those in the NLST and the DANTE trial (Table). Lung cancer incidence and mortality and all-cause mortality were lower in the control groups of the DLCST and the MILD study than in those of the NLST and the DANTE trial (22).
The NLST was stopped early after 6.5 years of follow-up when lung cancer mortality was reduced by 20.0% (95% CI, 6.8% to 26.7%) in the LDCT group. The reported number needed to screen (NNS) to prevent 1 lung cancer death was 320 among participants who completed 1 screening. All-cause mortality was also reduced by 6.7% (CI, 1.2% to 13.6%), with the NNS to prevent 1 death reported as 219 (53).
The DANTE trial found that, after a median follow-up of 34 months, the relative risk (RR) of lung cancer mortality among the LDCT group was 0.83 (CI, 0.45 to 1.54). All-cause mortality was equal in both groups at 3 years, with an RR of 0.85 (CI, 0.56 to 1.27) (39). These RRs were calculated with the reported person-months of follow-up appropriate for each study group (rather than the median), which was longer in the LDCT group by 657 person-months (35.7 months follow-up for the LDCT group vs. 31.5 months for the control group) (39).
In the DLCST, after a median follow-up of 4.8 years, the RRs were 1.37 (CI, 0.63 to 2.97) for lung cancer mortality and 1.46 (CI, 0.99 to 2.15) for all-cause mortality in the LDCT group (60).
In the MILD study, the RR for lung cancer mortality in the biennial LDCT group compared with the control group was 1.00 (CI, 0.34 to 2.98); the RR was 1.98 (CI, 1.57 to 2.50) in the annual LDCT group compared with the control group. All-cause mortality did not significantly differ between the combined screening groups and the control group (RR, 1.40 [CI, 0.82 to 2.38]). However, when comparing the annual LDCT group with the control group, the RR for all-cause mortality was 1.80 (CI, 1.56 to 2.07) (57). These RRs are calculated on the basis of the follow-up reported for each study group, which differed between groups (45 months for the combined LDCT group vs. 56 months for the control group).
Figure 1. Trial results for lung cancer mortality.
DANTE = Detection and Screening of Early Lung Cancer by Novel Imaging Technology and Molecular Essays; DLCST = Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial; MILD = Multicentric Italian Lung Detection; NLST = National Lung Screening Trial.
* Annual screening group compared only with control group; biennial screening group not shown.
† Median.
Figure 2. Trial results for all-cause mortality.
DANTE = Detection and Screening of Early Lung Cancer by Novel Imaging Technology and Molecular Essays; DLCST = Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial; MILD = Multicentric Italian Lung Detection; NLST = National Lung Screening Trial.
* Annual screening group compared only with control group; biennial screening group not shown.
† Median.
Benefits by Subgroup
All of the trials were conducted in participants at high risk for lung cancer based on current or former smoking. However, the differences in lung cancer incidence in the control groups indicate that the studies included participants whose risk varied substantially. No trials evaluated persons at low or average risk, and, to date, none has reported findings by sex or race or ethnicity.
Other Outcomes of Lung Cancer Screening With LDCT
Seven trials and 13 cohort studies (Appendix Table 2) (22) reported outcomes other than lung cancer mortality.
Radiation
Two trials (53, 57) and 3 cohort studies (26, 67, 80, 81) reported that radiation associated with 1 LDCT ranged from 0.61 to 1.50 mSv. Only the ITALUNG study reported cumulative radiation exposure associated with screening and follow-up evaluations, which was estimated at 6 to 7 mSv for baseline LDCT and 3 subsequent annual LDCTs (49, 50).
False-Positive Findings and Follow-up Evaluations
Participants with positive results on baseline screening ranged from 9.2% to 51.0%, with calculated positive predictive values (PPVs) for abnormal screening results ranging from 2.2% to 36.0% (31, 33, 34, 37, 43, 44, 52, 59, 67, 71, 78, 80, 81, 83, 88). Positive results were lower in subsequent screenings, with PPVs for abnormal results predicting lung cancer of 4% to 42%. As nodule size increases, the PPV increases. For example, among participants in the NLST, the overall PPV for nodules 4 mm or larger identified on baseline LDCT was 3.8%, but the PPV was 0.5% for 4- to 6-mm nodules and 41.3% for those larger than 30 mm (88).
In the I-ELCAP (International Early Lung Cancer Action Program) trial, 3396 of the 21 136 participants had nodules 5 mm or larger. Among 2558 participants with nodules between 5.0 and 9.0 mm, only 8 had lung cancer diagnosed within 12 months after baseline enrollment. Among 285 participants with nodules 15 mm or larger, 29.8% were diagnosed with lung cancer (89). Most abnormal results resolved after further imaging. The PPV for abnormal LDCT results with recommendations for biopsy ranged from 50% to 92% (33, 34, 39, 40, 43, 52, 53, 78, 80, 81, 83).
In the NLST, at least 1 complication occurred in association with follow-up of 245 LDCTs and 81 chest radiographies. Major complications were infrequent in both groups. Among the 649 cases of lung cancer found after a positive screening result, 73 and 23 major complications occurred in the LDCT and chest radiography groups, respectively, after an invasive procedure.
Among participants with positive results who were found not to have lung cancer, 12 and 4 major complications occurred in the LDCT and chest radiography groups, respectively. Sixteen participants in the LDCT group and 10 (all with lung cancer) in the chest radiography group died within 60 days of an invasive procedure. Whether the procedure was the cause of death is unknown (53). These procedures were only described for cases of lung cancer identified in the screening period. During follow-up, 411 cases of lung cancer were identified in the LDCT group and 662 in the chest radiography group, all probably requiring a diagnostic procedure.
False Reassurance
There is no gold standard for negative findings on screening LDCT, and sensitivity is typically determined by considering new incidents of lung cancer presenting within 1 year of a screening study as false-negative. In the 6 studies reporting this variable, sensitivity of LDCT for detecting lung cancer ranged from 80% to 100% (most often >90%), implying a false-negative rate of 0% to 20% (52, 67, 70, 71, 78, 80, 81). Raising the threshold for nodule sizes to consider positive will increase specificity for lung cancer but decrease sensitivity (89). No study evaluated the harm of false reassurance.
Overdiagnosis
No study formally reported overdiagnosis. Among 4 trials reporting results from groups with and without LDCT, the NLST suggested overdiagnosis, reporting more than 119 cases of lung cancer among 26 722 participants in the LDCT group after 6.5 years of follow-up (53). This trial also involved fewer late-stage cases of lung cancer in the LDCT group than in the chest radiography group. The 3 other trials reported more early-stage lung cancer in the LDCT groups than in the control groups but not fewer cases of advanced lung cancer (39, 40, 57, 60). However, insufficient and unequal follow-up in these studies limit the evaluation of overdiagnosis.
Psychosocial Consequences
Seven studies (27, 64, 72–74, 86, 87) evaluated psychosocial consequences among persons undergoing LDCT screening. In 2 European LDCT trials (NELSON [Dutch–Belgian Randomised Controlled Trial for Lung Cancer Screening in High-Risk Subjects] [74] and the DLCST [86, 87]), screening did not affect overall health-related quality of life or long-term anxiety. In the short term, the studies suggested increased anxiety or distress compared with baseline among participants with positive or indeterminate results (27, 64, 72, 73). Distress and fear of cancer decreased compared with baseline among those with negative results (27, 73).
Smoking Behavior
Two trials identified no differences in smoking cessation rates, relapse rates, or intensity when comparing persons randomly assigned to LDCT versus no LDCT (25, 75). In 2 trials, smoking behavior showed mixed results (comparing abnormal vs. normal findings): One showed a tendency toward smoking abstinence (25), and the other showed no difference (76). Cohort studies comparing abnormal with normal findings (24, 69) showed similar mixed results. One cohort study found that physician referral for patients with abnormal findings on LDCT increased smoking cessation rates compared with nonreferral for those with normal findings (66).
Incidental Findings
Most of the included studies reported incidental findings, but no standardized approach was available to report them. Nonpulmonary findings were common; infections and other types of cancer were also diagnosed. The NLST probably provides the best estimate of the frequency of incidental findings: 7.5% of all LDCT scans and 2.1% of all chest radiographs identified a “clinically significant” abnormality not suspicious for lung cancer (53). Coronary artery calcification was identified in approximately 50% of participants in 1 cohort study (62).
Discussion
The personal and public health consequences of lung cancer are enormous, and even a small benefit from screening could save many lives. This review found that in 1 large, good-quality trial that used 3 annual LDCTs to screen high-risk persons aged 55 to 74 years, lung cancer and all-cause mortality were reduced in the LDCT group compared with the annual chest radiography group by 20% and 7%, respectively (Appendix Table 3) (53). Twenty-five percent of the overall deaths in the control group were from lung cancer in this study, highlighting the large contribution of this disease to overall mortality in this age and risk strata of the population.
One fair-quality Italian trial involving men older than 60 years suggested that screening CT reduced lung cancer mortality, but this association was not significant (39, 40). Two European trials (1 fair-quality [60] and 1 poor-quality [57]) in lower-risk and younger patients showed no benefit of LDCT screening in reducing lung cancer mortality. In the evidence report (22), we found no data to support chest radiography for lung cancer screening, although data from the PLCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian) Cancer Screening Trial suggested a benefit among high-risk persons and possibly high- and average-risk women (22, 56). This suggests that, if there is any benefit of chest radiography screening, the benefit of lung cancer screening with LDCT shown in the NLST may be even greater if applied to an unscreened population.
Several factors may account for differential mortality among trials. First, the European studies enrolled fewer patients and had shorter follow-up than the NLST and had inadequate power to detect a difference in lung cancer mortality. In addition, the DANTE trial had reduced power to detect a difference, because 9 patients in the control group and 16 patients in the LDCT group were diagnosed with lung cancer at baseline with chest radiography and sputum cytology. This difference also suggests possible inadequate randomization or inadequate sample size, because the baseline risk for cancer diagnosed by sputum cytology or chest radiography was nearly 2-fold higher in the LDCT group.
Second, follow-up durations among randomized groups differed in the European trials. Adjustment for actual follow-up months by group in the MILD and DANTE studies markedly changed results, with the latter suggesting a benefit of screening rather than a neutral effect. However, this difference was not significant. In addition, the DLCST investigators noted that follow-up for lung cancer in the control group was less complete than in the intervention group, but they did not provide actual follow-up time.
Third, participants in the studies showing or suggesting reduced lung cancer mortality (NLST and the DANTE trial) were older with greater smoking exposure than those in studies not showing benefit (Table). Of note, lung cancer incidence and mortality and overall mortality rates in the NLST and the DANTE trial were 2- to 4-fold higher than in the DLCST and the MILD study, suggesting that LDCT screening might be more beneficial in higher-risk populations. A recent modeling study supports this hypothesis, finding that the NNS to save 1 life from lung cancer over 6 years (3 years of annual screening) was 82 for high-risk participants compared with 3180 for minimally eligible NLST participants (90).
Fourth, results from the MILD study should be interpreted with caution. The trial was rated poor-quality because of inadequate randomization with systematic differences between groups and differential follow-up. Finally, differential mortality among trials may be due to different population characteristics and systems of medical care in Europe than in the United States.
The potential benefits of lung cancer screening must be weighed against potential harms. Because of the low PPV of screening LDCT, subsequent procedures are often needed for diagnosis. These procedures are usually noninvasive, such as clinical examinations, repeated CT, and positron emission tomography; however, some may be invasive, such as biopsy and surgery. In the studies that we reviewed, most invasive procedures performed were for cancer, not benign disease, with a PPV ranging from 50% to 92% in included studies. This contrasts with the high number of false-positive findings requiring further evaluation with imaging or clinical follow-up, which were predominantly done for benign disease. Screening with LDCT did not seem to reduce overall quality of life or affect smoking rates. In addition, LDCT detected many incidental findings, such as emphysema and coronary artery calcifications, but the effect of these findings was not studied.
Overdiagnosis and consequent overtreatment is a concern in lung cancer screening. The 1% to 2.7% prevalence of unrecognized lung cancer suggests a preclinical pool of lung cancer in high-risk populations. The clinical significance of these tumors is uncertain, but patients with lung cancer typically receive treatment, resulting in harm to those with nonlethal cancer. Elderly smokers have high mortality rates from causes other than lung cancer, which also increases the risk for overdiagnosis.
In the future, biomarkers and CT variables, such as volume-doubling time and nodule size, may help discriminate among biologically aggressive and indolent tumors (82, 89). Arguments against substantial overdiagnosis come from autopsy studies that report low rates of unsuspected lung cancer, as well as natural history studies showing high mortality rates among untreated patients with early-stage lung cancer (63, 91–93). Overall, the reductions in lung cancer and all-cause mortality in the NLST, despite a higher incidence of lung cancer in the LDCT group (1040 vs. 941 cases), suggest that the benefit of screening outweighs the potential harm of overdiagnosis (53).
Radiation exposure is a harm of LDCT lung cancer screening (94). For context, LDCT is associated with radiation exposure near that of mammography. Radiation-induced cancer over 10 to 20 years is particularly concerning, although none of the studies reported on this potential outcome. Radiation dose varies by body weight, CT detector and manufacturer, and the number of images obtained. In many institutions, current practice involves following nodules with LDCT rather than high-resolution CT, which substantially reduces radiation exposure. If LDCT screening becomes routine, it will be important to measure the risk for radiation-associated harms and identify methods to lower the dose.
Our review differs from a recently published systematic review of LDCT screening (95). First, our review is more comprehensive, because we identified 8215 citations compared with 591. For example, we identified 7 studies that reported psychosocial outcomes (3 of which reported quality of life), whereas the other review identified 1 study. Second, studies published since the other review provide new data. Third, we analyzed rates of lung cancer and mortality by using the actual person-years of follow-up, which affects the effect size observed in 2 of the trials.
Our review has limitations. The NLST results may not be generalizable, because participants were younger, better educated, and less likely to be current smokers than the general U.S. population that would be eligible for LDCT screening by NLST criteria (96). The trial was conducted at mostly large academic centers. However, the large size of the trial, as well as the involvement of community health care providers in nodule management and treatment, may mitigate this concern. Furthermore, differences in population characteristics and systems of medical care and the small sample sizes used in the European studies may limit applicability to a U.S. population. Other limitations include a lack of specific information on LDCT screening in women and racial and ethnic groups. Studies of cost-effectiveness, modeling studies of radiation risk, and studies that evaluated patient perspectives on screening were not included because they were considered out of the scope of our review.
Future research to identify methods for focusing LDCT screening on persons at highest risk for disease, to improve discrimination between benign and malignant pulmonary nodules, and to find early indicators of aggressive disease is warranted. Studies have examined the role of biomarkers in these settings, and the NLST has collected biological specimens during enrollment; however, no results have yet been reported (53). New studies of risk modeling that could apply to currently screened groups, such as the Bach and Liverpool risk models, may facilitate identification of patients at higher risk who might benefit differentially from screening with LDCT (95, 97).
If LDCT screening becomes routine, the risk for harms should be measured and methods to limit them should be identified. It is also important to continue to evaluate the psychosocial consequences in patients who undergo screening, because psychological responses to screening and abnormal or normal results may differ between patients participating in research studies and the general population.
In conclusion, LDCT screening seemed to reduce lung cancer mortality. This result was driven by 1 large, good-quality study conducted in the United States in which the NNS to prevent 1 lung cancer death (among those who completed at least 1 screening) was 320 and the NNS to prevent 1 death overall was 219 over 6.5 years. These benefits compare with numbers needed to invite to screen to prevent 1 breast cancer death in mammography trials of 1339 for women aged 50 to 59 years after 11 to 20 years of follow-up (98, 99). They also compare with an NNS with flexible sigmoidoscopy of 817 to prevent 1 colon cancer death (100). Given the high number of current and former smokers in the population at risk for lung cancer, identifying and treating early-stage lung cancer with screening will hopefully clarify the balance of benefits and harms associated with screening. In addition, more work in public health to reduce smoking remains the most important approach to reducing morbidity and mortality from lung cancer.
References
1.
American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figure 2013. Atlanta, GA American Cancer Soc 2013.
2.
Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Altekruse SF, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2009 (Vintage 2009 Populations). Bethesda, MD National Cancer Institute 2011.
3.
American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figure 2010. Atlanta, GA American Cancer Soc 2010.
4.
Naff JL, Coté ML, Wenzlaff AS, and Schwartz AG. Racial differences in cancer risk among relatives of patients with early onset lung cancer. Chest. 2007;131:1289-94. [PMID: 17400658]
5.
Anthonisen NR, Skeans MA, Wise RA, Manfreda J, Kanner RE, and Connett JE; Lung Health Study Research Group. The effects of a smoking cessation intervention on 14.5-year mortality: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:233-9
6.
Jett JR. Current treatment of unresectable lung cancer. Mayo Clin Proc. 1993;68:603-11. [PMID: 8388526]
7.
Strauss GM. Screening for lung cancer: an evidence-based synthesis. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 1999;8:747-74, viii. [PMID: 10452939]
8.
Osann KE. Lung cancer in women: the importance of smoking, family history of cancer, and medical history of respiratory disease. Cancer Res. 1991;51:4893-7. [PMID: 1654203]
9.
Burns DM. Primary prevention, smoking, and smoking cessation: implications for future trends in lung cancer prevention. Cancer. 2000;89:2506-9. [PMID: 11147637]
10.
Halpern MT, Gillespie BW, and Warner KE. Patterns of absolute risk of lung cancer mortality in former smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:457-64. [PMID: 8445673]
11.
Tong L, Spitz MR, Fueger JJ, and Amos CA. Lung carcinoma in former smokers. Cancer. 1996;78:1004-10. [PMID: 8780538]
12.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Current cigarette smoking among adults - United States, 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61:889-94. [PMID: 23134971]
13.
Hole DJ, Watt GC, Davey-Smith G, Hart CL, Gillis CR, and Hawthorne VM. Impaired lung function and mortality risk in men and women: findings from the Renfrew and Paisley prospective population study. BMJ. 1996;313:711-5. [PMID: 8819439]
14.
Skillrud DM, Offord KP, and Miller RD. Higher risk of lung cancer in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A prospective, matched, controlled study. Ann Intern Med. 1986;105:503-7
15.
Fontham ET, Correa P, Reynolds P, Wu-Williams A, Buffler PA, Greenberg RS, et al. Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in nonsmoking women. A multicenter study. JAMA. 1994;271:1752-9. [PMID: 8196118]
16.
Trichopoulos D, Mollo F, Tomatis L, Agapitos E, Delsedime L, Zavitsanos X, et al. Active and passive smoking and pathological indicators of lung cancer risk in an autopsy study. JAMA. 1992;268:1697-701. [PMID: 1527879]
17.
Davila DG and Williams DE. The etiology of lung cancer. Mayo Clin Proc. 1993;68:170-82. [PMID: 8423698]
18.
Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, and Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69-90. [PMID: 21296855]
19.
Nesbitt JC, Lee J, Komaki R, and Roth JA. Cancer of the lung. In: Holland JF, Bast RC Jr, Morton DL, Frei E III, Kufe DW, Weichselbaum RR, eds. Cancer Medicine. Baltimore Williams & Wilkins 1997.
20.
Henschke CI, Yip R, and Miettinen OS; International Early Lung Cancer Action Program Investigators. Women's susceptibility to tobacco carcinogens and survival after diagnosis of lung cancer. JAMA. 2006;296:180-4. [PMID: 16835423]
21.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Lung cancer screening: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:738-9
22.
Humphrey L, Deffebach M, Pappas M, Baumann C, Artis K, Mitchell JP, et al. Screening for Lung Cancer: Systematic Review to Update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Rockville, MD Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 2013.
23.
Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, et al. Methods Work Group, Third US Preventive Services Task Force. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20:21-35. [PMID: 11306229]
24.
Anderson CM, Yip R, Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Ostroff JS, and Burns DM. Smoking cessation and relapse during a lung cancer screening program. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18:3476-83. [PMID: 19959698]
25.
Ashraf H, Tønnesen P, Holst Pedersen J, Dirksen A, Thorsen H, and Døssing M. Effect of CT screening on smoking habits at 1-year follow-up in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST). Thorax. 2009;64:388-92. [PMID: 19052048]
26.
Becker N, Motsch E, Gross ML, Eigentopf A, Heussel CP, Dienemann H, et al. Randomized study on early detection of lung cancer with MSCT in Germany: study design and results of the first screening round. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2012;138:1475-86. [PMID: 22526165]
27.
Byrne MM, Weissfeld J, and Roberts MS. Anxiety, fear of cancer, and perceived risk of cancer following lung cancer screening. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:917-25. [PMID: 18725404]
28.
Chang MY, Mentzer SJ, Colson YL, Linden PA, Jaklitsch MT, Lipsitz SR, et al. Factors predicting poor survival after resection of stage IA non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;134:850-6. [PMID: 17903494]
29.
Christian C, Erica S, and Morandi U. The prognostic impact of tumor size in resected stage I non-small cell lung cancer: evidence for a two thresholds tumor diameters classification. Lung Cancer. 2006;54:185-91. [PMID: 16996167]
30.
Cox LS, Clark MM, Jett JR, Patten CA, Schroeder DR, Nirelli LM, et al. Change in smoking status after spiral chest computed tomography scan screening. Cancer. 2003;98:2495-501. [PMID: 14635086]
31.
Croswell JM, Baker SG, Marcus PM, Clapp JD, and Kramer BS. Cumulative incidence of false-positive test results in lung cancer screening: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:505-12, W176-80
32.
Croswell JM, Kramer BS, Kreimer AR, Prorok PC, Xu JL, Baker SG, et al. Cumulative incidence of false-positive results in repeated, multimodal cancer screening. Ann Fam Med. 2009;7:212-22. [PMID: 19433838]
33.
Gohagan J, Marcus P, Fagerstrom R, Pinsky P, Kramer B, and Prorok P; Writing Committee, Lung Screening Study Research Group. Baseline findings of a randomized feasibility trial of lung cancer screening with spiral CT scan vs chest radiograph: the Lung Screening Study of the National Cancer Institute. Chest. 2004;126:114-21. [PMID: 15249451]
34.
Gohagan JK, Marcus PM, Fagerstrom RM, Pinsky PF, Kramer BS, Prorok PC, et al. Lung Screening Study Research Group. Final results of the Lung Screening Study, a randomized feasibility study of spiral CT versus chest X-ray screening for lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2005;47:9-15. [PMID: 15603850]
35.
Goodgame B, Viswanathan A, Miller CR, Gao F, Meyers B, Battafarano RJ, et al. A clinical model to estimate recurrence risk in resected stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2008;31:22-8. [PMID: 18376223]
36.
Goya T, Asamura H, Yoshimura H, Kato H, Shimokata K, Tsuchiya R, et al. Japanese Joint Committee of Lung Cancer Registry. Prognosis of 6644 resected non-small cell lung cancers in Japan: a Japanese lung cancer registry study. Lung Cancer. 2005;50:227-34. [PMID: 16061304]
37.
Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Smith JP, Libby D, Pasmantier M, McCauley D, et al. CT screening for lung cancer Assessing a regimen's diagnostic performance. Clin Imaging. 2004;28:317-21. [PMID: 15471661]
38.
Hocking WG, Hu P, Oken MM, Winslow SD, Kvale PA, Prorok PC, et al. PLCO Project Team. Lung cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:722-31. [PMID: 20442215]
39.
Infante M, Cavuto S, Lutman FR, Brambilla G, Chiesa G, Ceresoli G, et al. DANTE Study Group. A randomized study of lung cancer screening with spiral computed tomography: three-year results from the DANTE trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009;180:445-53. [PMID: 19520905]
40.
Infante M, Lutman FR, Cavuto S, Brambilla G, Chiesa G, Passera E, et al. DANTE Study Group. Lung cancer screening with spiral CT: baseline results of the randomized DANTE trial. Lung Cancer. 2008;59:355-63. [PMID: 17936405]
41.
Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Libby DM, Pasmantier MW, Smith JP, and Miettinen OS; International Early Lung Cancer Action Program Investigators. Survival of patients with stage I lung cancer detected on CT screening. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1763-71. [PMID: 17065637]
42.
Kates M, Swanson S, and Wisnivesky JP. Survival following lobectomy and limited resection for the treatment of stage I non-small cell lung cancer< = 1 cm in size: a review of SEER data. Chest. 2011;139:491-6. [PMID: 20576736]
43.
Liu X, Liang M, Wang Y, Chen K, Chen X, Qin P, et al. The outcome differences of CT screening for lung cancer pre and post following an algorithm in Zhuhai, China. Lung Cancer. 2011;73:230-6. [PMID: 21168238]
44.
Lopes Pegna A, Picozzi G, Mascalchi M, Maria Carozzi F, Carrozzi L, Comin C, et al. ITALUNG Study Research Group. Design, recruitment and baseline results of the ITALUNG trial for lung cancer screening with low-dose CT. Lung Cancer. 2009;64:34-40. [PMID: 18723240]
45.
MacRedmond R, McVey G, Lee M, Costello RW, Kenny D, Foley C, et al. Screening for lung cancer using low dose CT scanning: results of 2 year follow up. Thorax. 2006;61:54-6. [PMID: 16396954]
46.
Maeda H, Matsumura A, Kawabata T, Suito T, Kawashima O, Watanabe T, et al. Japan National Hospital Organization Study Group for Lung Cancer. Adenosquamous carcinoma of the lung: surgical results as compared with squamous cell and adenocarcinoma cases. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;41:357-61. [PMID: 21737295]
47.
Maeda R, Yoshida J, Ishii G, Hishida T, Aokage K, Nishimura M, et al. Long-term survival and risk factors for recurrence in stage I non-small cell lung cancer patients with tumors up to 3 cm in maximum dimension. Chest. 2010;138:357-62. [PMID: 20435660]
48.
Marcus PM, Bergstralh EJ, Zweig MH, Harris A, Offord KP, and Fontana RS. Extended lung cancer incidence follow-up in the Mayo Lung Project and overdiagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:748-56. [PMID: 16757699]
49.
Mascalchi M, Belli G, Zappa M, Picozzi G, Falchini M, Della Nave R, et al. Risk-benefit analysis of X-ray exposure associated with lung cancer screening in the Italung-CT trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:421-9. [PMID: 16861547]
50.
Mascalchi M, Mazzoni LN, Falchini M, Belli G, Picozzi G, Merlini V, et al. Dose exposure in the ITALUNG trial of lung cancer screening with low-dose CT. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:1134-9. [PMID: 21976631]
51.
McKenna RJ Jr, Houck W, and Fuller CB. Video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy: experience with 1,100 cases. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;81:421-5. [PMID: 16427825]
52.
Menezes RJ, Roberts HC, Paul NS, McGregor M, Chung TB, Patsios D, et al. Lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography in at-risk individuals: the Toronto experience. Lung Cancer. 2010;67:177-83. [PMID: 19427055]
53.
Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, Fagerstrom RM, et al. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:395-409. [PMID: 21714641]
54.
Okada M, Koike T, Higashiyama M, Yamato Y, Kodama K, and Tsubota N. Radical sublobar resection for small-sized non-small cell lung cancer: a multicenter study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;132:769-75. [PMID: 17000286]
55.
Okada M, Nishio W, Sakamoto T, Uchino K, Yuki T, Nakagawa A, et al. Evolution of surgical outcomes for nonsmall cell lung cancer: time trends in 1465 consecutive patients undergoing complete resection. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;77:1926-30. [PMID: 15172237]
56.
Oken MM, Hocking WG, Kvale PA, Andriole GL, Buys SS, Church TR, et al. PLCO Project Team. Screening by chest radiograph and lung cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) randomized trial. JAMA. 2011;306:1865-73. [PMID: 22031728]
57.
Pastorino U, Rossi M, Rosato V, Marchianò A, Sverzellati N, Morosi C, et al. Annual or biennial CT screening versus observation in heavy smokers: 5-year results of the MILD trial. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2012;21:308-15. [PMID: 22465911]
58.
Pedersen JH, Ashraf H, Dirksen A, Bach K, Hansen H, Toennesen P, et al. The Danish randomized lung cancer CT screening trial—overall design and results of the prevalence round. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4:608-14. [PMID: 19357536]
59.
Pinsky PF, Marcus PM, Kramer BS, Freedman M, Nath H, Kvale P, et al. Diagnostic procedures after a positive spiral computed tomography lung carcinoma screen. Cancer. 2005;103:157-63. [PMID: 15529306]
60.
Saghir Z, Dirksen A, Ashraf H, Bach KS, Brodersen J, Clementsen PF, et al. 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. 2012;67:296-301. [PMID: 22286927]
61.
Sawabata N, Miyaoka E, Asamura H, Nakanishi Y, Eguchi K, Mori M, et al. Japanese Joint Committee for Lung Cancer Registration. Japanese lung cancer registry study of 11,663 surgical cases in 2004: demographic and prognosis changes over decade. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6:1229-35. [PMID: 21610521]
62.
Shemesh J, Henschke CI, Farooqi A, Yip R, Yankelevitz DF, Shaham D, et al. Frequency of coronary artery calcification on low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer. Clin Imaging. 2006;30:181-5. [PMID: 16632153]
63.
Shirvani SM, Jiang J, Chang JY, Welsh JW, Gomez DR, Swisher S, et al. Comparative effectiveness of 5 treatment strategies for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer in the elderly. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;84:1060-70. [PMID: 22975611]
64.
Sinicrope PS, Rabe KG, Brockman TA, Patten CA, Petersen WO, Slusser J, et al. Perceptions of lung cancer risk and beliefs in screening accuracy of spiral computed tomography among high-risk lung cancer family members. Acad Radiol. 2010;17:1012-25. [PMID: 20599157]
65.
Strand TE, Rostad H, Møller B, and Norstein J. Survival after resection for primary lung cancer: a population based study of 3211 resected patients. Thorax. 2006;61:710-5. [PMID: 16601091]
66.
Styn MA, Land SR, Perkins KA, Wilson DO, Romkes M, and Weissfeld JL. Smoking behavior 1 year after computed tomography screening for lung cancer: effect of physician referral for abnormal CT findings. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18:3484-9. [PMID: 19959699]
67.
Swensen SJ, Jett JR, Hartman TE, Midthun DE, Mandrekar SJ, Hillman SL, et al. CT screening for lung cancer: five-year prospective experience. Radiology. 2005;235:259-65. [PMID: 15695622]
68.
Taylor KL, Cox LS, Zincke N, Mehta L, McGuire C, and Gelmann E. Lung cancer screening as a teachable moment for smoking cessation. Lung Cancer. 2007;56:125-34. [PMID: 17196298]
69.
Townsend CO, Clark MM, Jett JR, Patten CA, Schroeder DR, Nirelli LM, et al. Relation between smoking cessation and receiving results from three annual spiral chest computed tomography scans for lung carcinoma screening. Cancer. 2005;103:2154-62. [PMID: 15825210]
70.
Toyoda Y, Nakayama T, Kusunoki Y, Iso H, and Suzuki T. Sensitivity and specificity of lung cancer screening using chest low-dose computed tomography. Br J Cancer. 2008;98:1602-7. [PMID: 18475292]
71.
Tsushima K, Sone S, Hanaoka T, and Kubo K. Radiological diagnosis of small pulmonary nodules detected on low-dose screening computed tomography. Respirology. 2008;13:817-24. [PMID: 18811880]
72.
van den Bergh KA, Essink-Bot ML, Borsboom GJ, Scholten ET, van Klaveren RJ, and de Koning HJ. Long-term effects of lung cancer computed tomography screening on health-related quality of life: the NELSON trial. Eur Respir J. 2011;38:154-61. [PMID: 21148229]
73.
van den Bergh KA, Essink-Bot ML, Borsboom GJ, Th Scholten E, Prokop M, de Koning HJ, et al. Short-term health-related quality of life consequences in a lung cancer CT screening trial (NELSON). Br J Cancer. 2010;102:27-34. [PMID: 19935789]
74.
van den Bergh KA, Essink-Bot ML, van Klaveren RJ, and de Koning HJ. Informed participation in a randomised controlled trial of computed tomography screening for lung cancer. Eur Respir J. 2009;34:711-20. [PMID: 19282345]
75.
van der Aalst CM, van den Bergh KA, Willemsen MC, de Koning HJ, and van Klaveren RJ. Lung cancer screening and smoking abstinence: 2 year follow-up data from the Dutch-Belgian randomised controlled lung cancer screening trial. Thorax. 2010;65:600-5. [PMID: 20627916]
76.
van der Aalst CM, van Klaveren RJ, van den Bergh KA, Willemsen MC, and de Koning HJ. The impact of a lung cancer computed tomography screening result on smoking abstinence. Eur Respir J. 2011;37:1466-73. [PMID: 21148233]
77.
van Iersel CA, de Koning HJ, Draisma G, Mali WP, Scholten ET, Nackaerts K, et al. Risk-based selection from the general population in a screening trial: selection criteria, recruitment and power for the Dutch-Belgian randomised lung cancer multi-slice CT screening trial (NELSON). Int J Cancer. 2007;120:868-74. [PMID: 17131307]
78.
van Klaveren RJ, Oudkerk M, Prokop M, Scholten ET, Nackaerts K, Vernhout R, et al. Management of lung nodules detected by volume CT scanning. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2221-9. [PMID: 19955524]
79.
Van't Westeinde SC, Horeweg N, De Leyn P, Groen HJ, Lammers JW, Weenink C, et al. Complications following lung surgery in the Dutch-Belgian randomized lung cancer screening trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;42:420-9. [PMID: 22491665]
80.
Veronesi G, Bellomi M, Mulshine JL, Pelosi G, Scanagatta P, Paganelli G, et al. Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography: a non-invasive diagnostic protocol for baseline lung nodules. Lung Cancer. 2008;61:340-9. [PMID: 18308420]
81.
Veronesi G, Bellomi M, Scanagatta P, Preda L, Rampinelli C, Guarize J, et al. Difficulties encountered managing nodules detected during a computed tomography lung cancer screening program. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;136:611-7. [PMID: 18805261]
82.
Veronesi G, Maisonneuve P, Bellomi M, Rampinelli C, Durli I, Bertolotti R, et al. Estimating overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:776-84
83.
Wagnetz U, Menezes RJ, Boerner S, Paul NS, Wagnetz D, Keshavjee S, et al. CT screening for lung cancer: implication of lung biopsy recommendations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:351-8. [PMID: 22268177]
84.
Wilson DO, Weissfeld JL, Fuhrman CR, Fisher SN, Balogh P, Landreneau RJ, et al. The Pittsburgh Lung Screening Study (PLuSS): outcomes within 3 years of a first computed tomography scan. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;178:956-61. [PMID: 18635890]
85.
Xu DM, Gietema H, de Koning H, Vernhout R, Nackaerts K, Prokop M, et al. Nodule management protocol of the NELSON randomised lung cancer screening trial. Lung Cancer. 2006;54:177-84. [PMID: 16989922]
86.
Kaerlev L, Iachina M, Pedersen JH, Green A, and Nørgård BM. CT-Screening for lung cancer does not increase the use of anxiolytic or antidepressant medication. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:188. [PMID: 22621716]
87.
Aggestrup LM, Hestbech MS, Siersma V, Pedersen JH, and Brodersen J. Psychosocial consequences of allocation to lung cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2012;2:000663. [PMID: 22382119]
88.
Church TR, Black WC, Aberle DR, Berg CD, Clingan KL, Duan F, et al. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Results of initial low-dose computed tomographic screening for lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1980-91. [PMID: 23697514]
89.
Henschke CI, Yip R, Yankelevitz DF, and Smith JP; International Early Lung Cancer Action Program Investigators. Definition of a positive test result in computed tomography screening for lung cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:246-52
90.
Bach PB and Gould MK. When the average applies to no one: personalized decision making about potential benefits of lung cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:571-3
91.
Chan CK, Wells CK, McFarlane MJ, and Feinstein AR. More lung cancer but better survival. Implications of secular trends in “necropsy surprise” rates. Chest. 1989;96:291-6. [PMID: 2787730]
92.
Flehinger BJ, Kimmel M, Polyak T, and Melamed MR. Screening for lung cancer. The Mayo Lung Project revisited. Cancer. 1993;72:1573-80. [PMID: 8394199]
93.
Sobue T, Suzuki T, Matsuda M, Kuroishi T, Ikeda S, and Naruke T. Survival for clinical stage I lung cancer not surgically treated. Comparison between screen-detected and symptom-detected cases. The Japanese Lung Cancer Screening Research Group. Cancer. 1992;69:685-92. [PMID: 1730119]
94.
O'Connor GT and Hatabu H. Lung cancer screening, radiation, risks, benefits, and uncertainty [Editorial]. JAMA. 2012;307:2434-5. [PMID: 22692175]
95.
Bach PB, Mirkin JN, Oliver TK, Azzoli CG, Berry DA, Brawley OW, et al. Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review. JAMA. 2012;307:2418-29. [PMID: 22610500]
96.
Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Clapp JD, Clingan KL, Gareen IF, et al. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Baseline characteristics of participants in the randomized national lung screening trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:1771-9. [PMID: 21119104]
97.
Raji OY, Duffy SW, Agbaje OF, Baker SG, Christiani DC, Cassidy A, et al. Predictive accuracy of the Liverpool Lung Project risk model for stratifying patients for computed tomography screening for lung cancer: a case-control and cohort validation study. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:242-50
98.
Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, and Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:347-60
99.
Nelson H, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan B, Nygren P, et al. Screening for Breast Cancer: Systematic Evidence Review Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2009. Report 10-05142-EF-1.
100.
Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL, Yokochi LA, Church T, Laiyemo AO, et al. PLCO Project Team. Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2345-57. [PMID: 22612596]
101.
Mascalchi M, Mazzoni LN, Falchini M, Belli G, Picozzi G, Merlini V, et al. Dose exposure in the ITALUNG trial of lung cancer screening with low-dose CT. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:1134-9. [PMID: 21976631]
Comments
Sign In to Submit A CommentInformation & Authors
Information
Published In
Annals of Internal Medicine
Volume 159 • Number 6 • 17 September 2013
Pages: 411 - 420
History
Published in issue: 17 September 2013
Published online: 8 March 2020
Keywords
- Cancer screening
- Cancer treatment
- Cell biology
- Cohort studies
- Colorectal cancer
- Computed axial tomography
- Death rates
- Diagnostic radiology
- Lung and intrathoracic tumors
- Lung cancer screening
- Population statistics
- Prevention, policy, and public health
- Quality of life
- Radiation exposure
- Respiratory system procedures
- Sputum
- Systematic reviews
- Thorax
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. For an editable text file, please select Medlars format which will download as a .txt file. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
Download article citation data for:
Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review to Update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Ann Intern Med.2013;159:411-420. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-6-201309170-00690
Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review to Update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Ann Intern Med.2013;159:411-420. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-6-201309170-00690
View More
Get Access
Login Options:
Purchase
You will be redirected to acponline.org to sign-in to Annals to complete your purchase.
Access to EPUBs and PDFs for FREE Annals content requires users to be registered and logged in. A subscription is not required. You can create a free account below or from the following link. You will be redirected to acponline.org to create an account that will provide access to Annals. If you are accessing the Free Annals content via your institution's access, registration is not required.
Create your Free Account
You will be redirected to acponline.org to create an account that will provide access to Annals.
Author's Response
Thank you for your letters regarding our recent systematic review of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer. We appreciate your interest and respond below:
1. Over-diagnosis--- as we note in our paper and the associated systematic review, over-diagnosis is a risk of lung cancer screening and of uncertain magnitude. We do not believe that a valid estimate of over-diagnosis comes from the Mayo Lung Project for many reasons, most outlined in our report [Humphrey, 2013 #16875] and the prior review [Humphrey, 2004 #61]). More research in this important area is needed.
2. We rated the quality of the DLCST as moderate. Limitations we identified included a lack of description of allocation concealment as you note. The paper states that patients were randomized at their first visit. Allocation concealment was not described, only that patients were randomized in block permutation form. [Pedersen, 2009 #3703] In general, we rely on information in publications to evaluate trial quality. In addition, on page 5 of the 2012 paper, unequal follow-up is noted. Specifically, the paper states that, “Information on lung cancer in the control group is not as up to date as in the screening group.”[Saghir, 2012 #8634]
3. As we note in our paper, we strongly agree that more research in the area of psychosocial outcomes will be very important to aid individual decision making for people considering low-dose CT screening for lung cancer.
Please note also that we do not make recommendations about screening. These are made by the Task Force based on the systematic review we prepare. We very much look forward to more data from current trials to better inform decision making in lung cancer screening. Thank you again for your interest.
Sincerely,
Linda Humphrey, MD, MPH
Mark Deffebach, MD
Miranda Pappas, MA
Bernadette Zakher, MBBS
Christopher Slatore, MD, MS
Recommendation about low-dose computed tomography screening is premature
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has published a systematic review on screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).(1) Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on LDCT (one from the U.S., six from Europe) were identified but only four were included in the review because the other three have not reported results in the intervention and control groups yet. A reduction in lung-cancer specific mortality and a trend for reduced overall mortality was seen in the U.S. trial (which compared LDCT with chest X-ray, and had far more participants and years of follow-up than other trials), but not in any of the three European trials (which compared LDCT with no screening, have less participants, and have not reported final results). In addition, the USPSTF noted that the main harms were: radiation exposure, overdiagnosis, a high rate of false-positives and common incidental findings. In this comment we argue that the available evidence on screening harms is still too scarce to make definitive recommendations about low-dose computed tomography screening. We disagree with two arguments presented by the USPSTF: 1) that no studies formally reported overdiagnosis, and 2) that screening did not affect overall health-related quality of life or long-term anxiety. 1) Overdiagnosis The European trials, which compared LDCT with no screening, have not had enough follow-up time to report overdiagnosis. However, they all found more early-stage lung cancer, but not fewer cases of advanced lung cancer in the LDCT groups. (1) This is indirect evidence for overdiagnosis. In the NLST, which compared LDCT with chest X-ray, 119 more cases of lung cancer in the LDCT group were found (approximately 4 more lung cancers per 1000 participants).(2) Furthermore, overdiagnosis has previously been reported in chest X-ray screening.(3) Our interpretation is that LDCT-screening results in some degree of overdiagnosis, but the exact degree of overdiagnosis cannot be estimated before the European trials (which compared LDCT with no screening) have had sufficient follow-up time.(4) There was no evidence of overdiagnosis at 6 years of follow-up in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) study within the subgroup of participants that met the eligibility criteria of the NLST.(5) Nevertheless, in the Mayo Lung Project (MLP), lung cancer screening with chest X-ray was associated with approximately 10 overdiagnosed cancers per 1000 participants.(6) Thus, the reduction 3 lung-cancer deaths per 1000 participants found in the NLST(7) needs to be balanced against the plausible estimates of overdiagnosis: from 4/1000 participants (NLST + PLCO estimate) to 14/1000 participants (NLST + MLP estimate). 2) Psychosocial consequences, If psychosocial consequences of cancer screening are to be measured there is a need for questionnaires with high content validity and adequate psychometric properties.(8) In a qualitative study none of the interviewees reported pathological levels on anxiety and depression that needed therapeutic and/or pharmaceutical treatment.(9) The use of anxiolytic or antidepressant medication might therefore be an insufficient surrogate outcome for psychosocial consequences of LDCT-screening.(10) So far, RCTs on LDCT-screening have not provided evidence that the questionnaires used in their surveys have adequate measurement qualities and properties. Therefore, the results of these surveys are questionable. In the DLCST an instrument has been developed using qualitative group interviews and item response theory modeling: the Consequences of Screening in Lung Cancer (COS-LC) questionnaire.(9) The COS-LC has been used trough out the DLCST.(11) In the DLCST we have found that participation in lung cancer screening has negative psychosocial consequences for the apparently healthy participants one year after randomization.(12) In another study we have revealed substantial socio-demographic and psychosocial participation bias in DLCST(13) that most likely has underestimated the negative psychosocial consequences in the first study.(12) Before it can be assessed if a medical screening modality results in more good than harm – or vice versa – high quality evidence about the potential intended beneficial effects and the potential unintended harmful effects is needed. The USPSTF has 30 July on its website (http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/draftrec.htm) published a draft of their recommendation for LDCT-screening based on their review that be commented until 26 August. The USPSTF recommends annual screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in persons at high risk for lung cancer based on age and smoking history. We do not think there is high quality evidence to support this recommendation because of the lack of high quality evidence about overdiagnosis and psychosocial consequences of LDCT-screening. Without such information we cannot understand how there is either “high certainty that the net benefit is moderate or there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is moderate to substantial”.The European RCTs will hopefully be able to raise sufficient evidence about the degree of overdiagnosis of LDCT-screening of which the true effect can only be determined in comparison to a non-screening control group.(4) Furthermore, in the DLCST we are working on our data on costs and psychosocial consequences and hope to report our main results soon. In addition, cost-effectiveness analysis can only be conducted if evidence about all relevant benefits and harms exists. Without high quality evidence about overdiagnosis, psychosocial consequences and cost effectiveness we find that any recommendation about LDCT-screening is premature.
Reference List
(1) Humphrey LL, Deffebach M, Pappas M, Baumann C, Artis K, Mitchell JP, et al. Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review to Update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Ann Intern Med 2013 Jul 30;N/A(N/A):N/A.
(2) Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, Fagerstrom RM, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011 Aug 4;365(5):395-409.
(3) Manser R, Lethaby A, Irving LB, Stone C, Byrnes G, Abramson MJ, et al. Screening for lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;6:CD001991.
(4) Field JK, van Klaveren R, Pedersen JH, Pastorino U, Paci E, Becker N, et al. European randomized lung cancer screening trials: Post NLST. J Surg Oncol 2013 Jul 1;n/a.
(5) Oken MM, Hocking WG, Kvale PA, Andriole GL, Buys SS, Church TR, et al. Screening by Chest Radiograph and Lung Cancer Mortality: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Randomized Trial. JAMA 2011 Oct 26.
(6) Marcus PM, Bergstralh EJ, Fagerstrom RM, Williams DE, Fontana R, Taylor WF, et al. Lung cancer mortality in the Mayo Lung Project: impact of extended follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000 Aug 16;92(16):1308-16.
(7) Heleno B, Rasmussen JF, Brodersen J. Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with CT Screening. N Engl J Med 2011 Nov 24;365(21):2035-8.
(8) Brodersen J, McKenna SP, Doward LC, Thorsen H. Measuring the psychosocial consequences of screening. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007 Jan 8;5(1):3.
(9) Brodersen J, Thorsen H, Kreiner S. Consequences Of Screening in Lung Cancer: Development and Dimensionality of a Questionnaire. Value in Health 2010 Aug 18;13(5):601-12.
(10) Kaerlev L, Iachina M, Pedersen JH, Green A, Norgard BM. CT-Screening for lung cancer does not increase the use of anxiolytic or antidepressant medication. BMC Cancer 2012;12:188.
(11) Pedersen JH, Ashraf H, Dirksen A, Bach K, Hansen H, Tønnesen P, et al. The Danish Randomized Lung Cancer CT Screening Trial – Overall Design and Results of the Prevalence Round. Journal of Thoracic Oncology 2009 May;4(5):608-14.
(12) Aggestrup LM, Hestbech MS, Siersma V, Pedersen JH, Brodersen J. Psychosocial Consequences of Allocation to Lung Cancer Screening – a Randomised Controlled Trial. BMJ Open 2012;10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000663.
(13) Hestbech MS, Siersma V, Dirksen A, Pedersen JH, Brodersen J. Participation bias in a randomised trial of screening for lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2011 Sep;73(3):325-31.
Clarifying information about the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has published a systematic review on screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).[1] In the review the USPSTF stated 1) that there were insufficient and unequal follow-up in three European randomized controlled trials to evaluate the degree of overdiagnosis and 2) that the allocation in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST) was unclear. In this comment we (as representatives of the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST)) present clarifying information about the DLCST. 1) Insufficient and unequal follow-up. We agree with the USPSTF that the follow-up of the DLCST (and the two other European trials) is insufficient to assess the impact on mortality and the level of overdiagnosis. However, for mortality and cancer incidence the follow-up in the screening and control group was equal as stated in our status-paper after five annual screening rounds: “…the latest follow-up for both groups was set as end of screening, 31 March 2010.”[2] 2) Unclear allocation in the DLCST Allocation in the DLCST was described for the first time in our paper reporting on the prevalence round: "Participants were randomized by a computer program (random permuted blocks of 10 participants) to either annual screening by low-dose CT (the screening group) or the control group who were not offered CT screening."[3] Later, in our paper including all five screening rounds we wrote: "After inclusion, the participants were randomized to the screening group (n=2052) or the control group (n=2052). The screening group received five annual low-dose chest CT scans (one baseline scan and four subsequent incidence scans)."[2]We would have been happy to clarify any matter about allocation concealment if any of the authors of the USPSTF had contacted us. The participants in the DLCST were randomised by a centrally-held, computer-generated list (random permuted blocks of 10 participants). Allocation concealment was ensured, as the computer application did not release the randomization code until the participant had been recruited into the trial, which took place after eligibility was checked and informed consent was provided. During the entire recruitment period (October 2004 to March 2006), the researchers involved in participant recruitment were unaware that the randomised list contained random permuted blocks, and thus could not guess the next allocation in the sequence.
Reference List
[1] Humphrey LL, Deffebach M, Pappas M, Baumann C, Artis K, Mitchell JP et al. Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review to Update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Ann Intern Med 2013; N/A(N/A):N/A.
[2] Saghir Z, Dirksen A, Ashraf H, Bach KS, Brodersen J, Clementsen PF et al. 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 2012; 67(4):296-301.
[3] Pedersen JH, Ashraf H, Dirksen A, Bach K, Hansen H, Tønnesen P et al. The Danish Randomized Lung Cancer CT Screening Trial – Overall Design and Results of the Prevalence Round. Journal of Thoracic Oncology 2009; 4(5):608-614.