Literature DB >> 20142770

Self-selection effects in smokers attending lung cancer screening: a 9.5-year population-based cohort study in Varese, Italy.

Lorenzo Dominioni1, Nicola Rotolo, Albino Poli, Massimo Paolucci, Fausto Sessa, Vincenzo D'Ambrosio, Antonio Paddeu, William Mantovani, Andrea Imperatori.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We hypothesize that mortality risk profile of participants and nonparticipants in nonrandomized lung cancer (LC) screening of smokers may be different.
METHODS: In 1997, a population-based cohort of 5815 smokers of Varese Province was invited to nonrandomized LC screening by annual chest x-ray examination for 4 years. LC risk factors and screening participation rate were recorded. Except for screening, the whole cohort received usual care. After 9.5-year observation, we compared mortality of participants versus nonparticipants by assessing age-standardized all-cause mortality rate ratio (MRR) and disease group-specific MRR with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).
RESULTS: Self-selected screening participants were 21% of cohort. Participants were younger (p < 0.001), were more frequently current smokers (p = 0.019), had more pack-years of smoking (p < 0.0001), and had higher rate of LC family history (p < 0.0001) and of occupational LC risk (p < 0.0001) relative to nonparticipants. In logistic regression analysis familial LC, occupational risk and pack-years smoked were significant predictors of participation in screening and of developing LC. Participants displayed a healthy effect, as shown by all-cause MRR = 0.67 (95% CI, 0.53-0.84), all cancers except LC MRR = 0.61 (95% CI, 0.41-0.91), cardiovascular diseases MRR = 0.38 (95% CI, 0.22-0.63), and noncancer disease other than cardiovascular or respiratory MRR = 0.57 (95% CI, 0.34-0.92). The LC mortality (MRR = 1.40; 95% CI, 1.03-1.91) was higher in participants relative to nonparticipants (p = 0.031).
CONCLUSION: The selection effect in LC screening participants was dual: healthy effect and higher LC mortality. In assessing the overall effectiveness of LC screening on a population level, a higher LC mortality risk in participants should be considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20142770     DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181d2efc7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Oncol        ISSN: 1556-0864            Impact factor:   15.609


  9 in total

1.  Quality of life and healthcare use in a randomized controlled lung cancer screening study.

Authors:  Peter J Mazzone; Nancy Obuchowski; Alex Z Fu; Michael Phillips; Moulay Meziane
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2013-08

2.  Early lung cancer detection using the self-evaluation scoring questionnaire and chest digital radiography: a 3-year follow-up study in China.

Authors:  Bojiang Chen; Youjuan Wang; Huibi Cao; Dan Liu; Shangfu Zhang; Jun Gao; Jianqun Yu; Yan Huang; Weimin Li
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer in the United States.

Authors:  Pamela M McMahon; Chung Yin Kong; Colleen Bouzan; Milton C Weinstein; Lauren E Cipriano; Angela C Tramontano; Bruce E Johnson; Jane C Weeks; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 15.609

4.  Lung Cancer Screening Participation: Developing a Conceptual Model to Guide Research.

Authors:  Lisa Carter-Harris; Lorie L Davis; Susan M Rawl
Journal:  Res Theory Nurs Pract       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 0.688

5.  A population-based cohort study of chest x-ray screening in smokers: lung cancer detection findings and follow-up.

Authors:  Lorenzo Dominioni; Nicola Rotolo; William Mantovani; Albino Poli; Salvatore Pisani; Valentina Conti; Massimo Paolucci; Fausto Sessa; Antonio Paddeu; Vincenzo D'Ambrosio; Andrea Imperatori
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2012-01-17       Impact factor: 4.430

6.  Volunteer effect and compromised randomization in the Mayo Project of screening for lung cancer.

Authors:  Lorenzo Dominioni; Albino Poli; William Mantovani; Nicola Rotolo; Andrea Imperatori
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-10-23       Impact factor: 8.082

7.  New recommendation and coverage of low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening: uptake has increased but is still low.

Authors:  Jiang Li; Sukyung Chung; Esther K Wei; Harold S Luft
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  Is chest X-ray screening for lung cancer in smokers cost-effective? Evidence from a population-based study in Italy.

Authors:  Paolo Pertile; Albino Poli; Lorenzo Dominioni; Nicola Rotolo; Elisa Nardecchia; Massimo Castiglioni; Massimo Paolucci; William Mantovani; Andrea Imperatori
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2015-09-12

9.  Comparing benefits from many possible computed tomography lung cancer screening programs: extrapolating from the National Lung Screening Trial using comparative modeling.

Authors:  Pamela M McMahon; Rafael Meza; Sylvia K Plevritis; William C Black; C Martin Tammemagi; Ayca Erdogan; Kevin ten Haaf; William Hazelton; Theodore R Holford; Jihyoun Jeon; Lauren Clarke; Chung Yin Kong; Sung Eun Choi; Vidit N Munshi; Summer S Han; Joost van Rosmalen; Paul F Pinsky; Suresh Moolgavkar; Harry J de Koning; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-30       Impact factor: 3.752

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.