Literature DB >> 18458247

Estimating long-term effectiveness of lung cancer screening in the Mayo CT screening study.

Pamela M McMahon1, Chung Yin Kong, Bruce E Johnson, Milton C Weinstein, Jane C Weeks, Karen M Kuntz, Jo-Anne O Shepard, Stephen J Swensen, G Scott Gazelle.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To use individual-level data provided from the single-arm study of helical computed tomographic (CT) screening at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minn) to estimate the long-term effectiveness of screening in Mayo study participants and to compare estimates from an existing lung cancer simulation model with estimates from a different modeling approach that used the same data.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by institutional review boards and was HIPAA compliant. Deidentified individual-level data from participants (1520 current or former smokers aged 50-85 years) in the Mayo Clinic helical CT screening study were used to populate the Lung Cancer Policy Model, a comprehensive microsimulation model of lung cancer development, screening findings, treatment results, and long-term outcomes. The model predicted diagnosed cases of lung cancer and deaths per simulated study arm (five annual screening examinations vs no screening). Main outcome measures were predicted changes in lung cancer-specific and all-cause mortality as functions of follow-up time after simulated enrollment and randomization.
RESULTS: At 6-year follow-up, the screening arm had an estimated 37% relative increase in lung cancer detection, compared with the control arm. At 15-year follow-up, five annual screening examinations yielded a 9% relative increase in lung cancer detection. The relative reduction in cumulative lung cancer-specific mortality from five annual screening examinations was 28% at 6-year follow-up (15% at 15 years). The relative reduction in cumulative all-cause mortality from five annual screening examinations was 4% at 6-year follow-up (2% at 15 years).
CONCLUSION: Screening may reduce lung cancer-specific mortality but may offer a smaller reduction in overall mortality because of increased competing mortality risks associated with smoking. (c) RSNA, 2008.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18458247      PMCID: PMC5410933          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2481071446

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  46 in total

Review 1.  Simulation modeling of outcomes and cost effectiveness.

Authors:  S D Ramsey; M McIntosh; R Etzioni; N Urban
Journal:  Hematol Oncol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 3.722

2.  Early lung cancer action project: initial findings on repeat screenings.

Authors:  C I Henschke; D P Naidich; D F Yankelevitz; G McGuinness; D I McCauley; J P Smith; D Libby; M Pasmantier; M Vazquez; J Koizumi; D Flieder; N Altorki; O S Miettinen
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2001-07-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 3.  Screening mammography controversies: resolved, partly resolved, and unresolved.

Authors:  Stephen A Feig
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.431

4.  Estimation of mortality rates for disease simulation models using Bayesian evidence synthesis.

Authors:  Pamela M McMahon; Alan M Zaslavsky; Milton C Weinstein; Karen M Kuntz; Jane C Weeks; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2006 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Potential cost-effectiveness of one-time screening for lung cancer (LC) in a high risk cohort.

Authors:  D Marshall; K N Simpson; C C Earle; C Chu
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 5.705

6.  Cost-effectiveness of whole-body CT screening.

Authors:  Molly T Beinfeld; Eve Wittenberg; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Lung cancer screening with CT: Mayo Clinic experience.

Authors:  Stephen J Swensen; James R Jett; Thomas E Hartman; David E Midthun; Jeff A Sloan; Anne-Marie Sykes; Gregory L Aughenbaugh; Medy A Clemens
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-01-24       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Radiation risks potentially associated with low-dose CT screening of adult smokers for lung cancer.

Authors:  David J Brenner
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  The cost-effectiveness of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer: preliminary results of baseline screening.

Authors:  Juan P Wisnivesky; Alvin I Mushlin; Nachum Sicherman; Claudia Henschke
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 9.410

10.  Computed tomography screening and lung cancer outcomes.

Authors:  Peter B Bach; James R Jett; Ugo Pastorino; Melvyn S Tockman; Stephen J Swensen; Colin B Begg
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-03-07       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  39 in total

1.  Targeted screening of individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer: results of a simulation model.

Authors:  Pari V Pandharipande; Curtis Heberle; Emily C Dowling; Chung Yin Kong; Angela Tramontano; Katherine E Perzan; William Brugge; Chin Hur
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Cardiac computed tomographic angiography: evaluation of non-cardiac structures.

Authors:  Samuel Wann; Peter Rao; Roger Des Prez
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2009-01-20       Impact factor: 5.952

3.  Clarifying differences in natural history between models of screening: the case of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Carolyn M Rutter; Amy B Knudsen; Ann G Zauber; James E Savarino; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Rob Boer; Eric J Feuer; J Dik F Habbema; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2011-06-14       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 4.  Advances in Imaging and Automated Quantification of Malignant Pulmonary Diseases: A State-of-the-Art Review.

Authors:  Bruno Hochhegger; Matheus Zanon; Stephan Altmayer; Gabriel S Pacini; Fernanda Balbinot; Martina Z Francisco; Ruhana Dalla Costa; Guilherme Watte; Marcel Koenigkam Santos; Marcelo C Barros; Diana Penha; Klaus Irion; Edson Marchiori
Journal:  Lung       Date:  2018-10-09       Impact factor: 2.584

5.  Perceptions of lung cancer risk and beliefs in screening accuracy of spiral computed tomography among high-risk lung cancer family members.

Authors:  Pamela S Sinicrope; Kari G Rabe; Tabetha A Brockman; Christi A Patten; Wesley O Petersen; Joshua Slusser; Ping Yang; Stephen J Swensen; Eric S Edell; Mariza de Andrade; Gloria M Petersen
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Calibration of disease simulation model using an engineering approach.

Authors:  Chung Yin Kong; Pamela M McMahon; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2009-01-12       Impact factor: 5.725

7.  A Decision Analysis of Follow-up and Treatment Algorithms for Nonsolid Pulmonary Nodules.

Authors:  Mark M Hammer; Lauren L Palazzo; Andrew L Eckel; Eduardo M Barbosa; Chung Yin Kong
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Adopting helical CT screening for lung cancer: potential health consequences during a 15-year period.

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

9.  Comparative analysis of 5 lung cancer natural history and screening models that reproduce outcomes of the NLST and PLCO trials.

Authors:  Rafael Meza; Kevin ten Haaf; Chung Yin Kong; Ayca Erdogan; William C Black; Martin C Tammemagi; Sung Eun Choi; Jihyoun Jeon; Summer S Han; Vidit Munshi; Joost van Rosmalen; Paul Pinsky; Pamela M McMahon; Harry J de Koning; Eric J Feuer; William D Hazelton; Sylvia K Plevritis
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-02-27       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 10.  Lung cancer screening update.

Authors:  Massimo Bellomi; Cristiano Rampinelli; Elvio De Fiori; Lorenzo Preda; Giulia Veronesi
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2009-10-02       Impact factor: 3.909

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.