BACKGROUND: There has been resurgence of interest in lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography. The implications of directing a screening programme at smokers has been little explored. METHODS: A nationwide telephone survey was conducted. Demographics, certain clinical characteristics and attitudes about screening for lung cancer were ascertained. Responses of current, former and never smokers were compared. RESULTS: 2001 people from the US were interviewed. Smokers were significantly (p < 0.05) more likely than never smokers to be male, non-white, less educated, and to report poor health status or having had cancer, and less likely to be able to identify a usual source of healthcare. Compared with never smokers, current smokers were less likely to believe that early detection would result in a good chance of survival (p < 0.05). Smokers were less likely to be willing to consider computed tomography screening for lung cancer (71.2% (current smokers) v 87.6% (never smokers) odds ratio (OR) 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 0.71). More never smokers as opposed to current smokers believed that the risk of disease (88% v 56%) and the accuracy of the test (92% v 71%) were important determinants in deciding whether to be screened (p < 0.05). Only half of the current smokers would opt for surgery for a screen-diagnosed cancer. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that there may be substantial obstacles to the successful implementation of a mass-screening programme for lung cancer that will target cigarette smokers.
BACKGROUND: There has been resurgence of interest in lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography. The implications of directing a screening programme at smokers has been little explored. METHODS: A nationwide telephone survey was conducted. Demographics, certain clinical characteristics and attitudes about screening for lung cancer were ascertained. Responses of current, former and never smokers were compared. RESULTS: 2001 people from the US were interviewed. Smokers were significantly (p < 0.05) more likely than never smokers to be male, non-white, less educated, and to report poor health status or having had cancer, and less likely to be able to identify a usual source of healthcare. Compared with never smokers, current smokers were less likely to believe that early detection would result in a good chance of survival (p < 0.05). Smokers were less likely to be willing to consider computed tomography screening for lung cancer (71.2% (current smokers) v 87.6% (never smokers) odds ratio (OR) 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 0.71). More never smokers as opposed to current smokers believed that the risk of disease (88% v 56%) and the accuracy of the test (92% v 71%) were important determinants in deciding whether to be screened (p < 0.05). Only half of the current smokers would opt for surgery for a screen-diagnosed cancer. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that there may be substantial obstacles to the successful implementation of a mass-screening programme for lung cancer that will target cigarette smokers.
Authors: C I Henschke; D I McCauley; D F Yankelevitz; D P Naidich; G McGuinness; O S Miettinen; D M Libby; M W Pasmantier; J Koizumi; N K Altorki; J P Smith Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-07-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: P M Marcus; E J Bergstralh; R M Fagerstrom; D E Williams; R Fontana; W F Taylor; P C Prorok Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-08-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Stephen J Swensen; James R Jett; Jeff A Sloan; David E Midthun; Thomas E Hartman; Anne-Marie Sykes; Gregory L Aughenbaugh; Frank E Zink; Shauna L Hillman; Gayle R Noetzel; Randolph S Marks; Amy C Clayton; Peter C Pairolero Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2002-02-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: S Sone; S Takashima; F Li; Z Yang; T Honda; Y Maruyama; M Hasegawa; T Yamanda; K Kubo; K Hanamura; K Asakura Journal: Lancet Date: 1998-04-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Antonio Gutierrez; Robert Suh; Fereidoun Abtin; Scott Genshaft; Kathleen Brown Journal: Semin Intervent Radiol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 1.513
Authors: Sonia A Cunningham; Robert Yu; Tina Shih; Sharon Giordano; Lorna H McNeill; Ruth Rechis; Susan K Peterson; Paul Cinciripini; Lewis Foxhall; Ernest Hawk; Sanjay Shete Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Pamela M McMahon; Chung Yin Kong; Milton C Weinstein; Angela C Tramontano; Lauren E Cipriano; Bruce E Johnson; Jane C Weeks; G Scott Gazelle Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M Pallin; S Walsh; M F O'Driscoll; C Murray; A Cahalane; L Brown; M Carter; P Mitchell; T J McDonnell; M W Butler Journal: Lung Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 2.584