Literature DB >> 24153450

Lung cancer screening: review and performance comparison under different risk scenarios.

Joseph E Tota1, Agnihotram V Ramanakumar, Eduardo L Franco.   

Abstract

Lung cancer is currently one of the most common malignant diseases and is responsible for substantial mortality worldwide. Compared with never smokers, former smokers remain at relatively high risk for lung cancer, accounting for approximately half of all newly diagnosed cases in the US. Screening offers former smokers the best opportunity to reduce their risk of advanced stage lung cancer and there is now evidence that annual screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is effective in preventing mortality. Studies are being conducted to evaluate whether the benefits of LDCT screening outweigh its costs and potential harms and to determine the most appropriate workup for patients with screen-detected lung nodules. Program efficiency would be optimized by targeting high-risk current smokers, but low uptake among this group is a concern. Former smokers may be invited for screening; however, if fewer long-term current smokers and more former smokers with long quit duration elect to attend, this could have very adverse effects on cost and screening test parameters. To illustrate this point, we present three possible screening scenarios with lung cancer prevalence ranging from between 0.62 and 5.0 %. In summary, cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening may be improved if linked to successful smoking cessation programs and if better approaches are developed to reach very high-risk patients, e.g., long-term current smokers or others based on more accurate risk prediction models.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24153450     DOI: 10.1007/s00408-013-9517-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lung        ISSN: 0341-2040            Impact factor:   2.584


  108 in total

1.  Performance of chest radiograph and CT scan for lung cancer screening in asbestos-exposed workers.

Authors:  B Clin; F Morlais; L Guittet; A Gislard; M-F Marquignon; C Paris; J-F Caillard; G Launoy; M Letourneux
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2009-03-08       Impact factor: 4.402

2.  Clinical features of 5,628 primary lung cancer patients: experience at Mayo Clinic from 1997 to 2003.

Authors:  Ping Yang; Mark S Allen; Marie C Aubry; Jason A Wampfler; Randolph S Marks; Eric S Edell; Stephen Thibodeau; Alex A Adjei; James Jett; Claude Deschamps
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 9.410

3.  Gail model for prediction of absolute risk of invasive breast cancer: independent evaluation in the Florence-European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition cohort.

Authors:  Adriano Decarli; Stefano Calza; Giovanna Masala; Claudia Specchia; Domenico Palli; Mitchell H Gail
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-12-06       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  C-reactive protein and risk of lung cancer.

Authors:  Anil K Chaturvedi; Neil E Caporaso; Hormuzd A Katki; Hui-Lee Wong; Nilanjan Chatterjee; Sharon R Pine; Stephen J Chanock; James J Goedert; Eric A Engels
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-04-26       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 5.  Cancer screening in the United States, 2010: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening.

Authors:  Robert A Smith; Vilma Cokkinides; Durado Brooks; Debbie Saslow; Otis W Brawley
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2010 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 508.702

6.  Impact of early detection on the clinical course of lung cancer.

Authors:  M R Melamed; B J Flehinger; M B Zaman
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 2.741

7.  Lung carcinoma in former smokers.

Authors:  L Tong; M R Spitz; J J Fueger; C A Amos
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1996-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  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

Review 9.  Screening for lung cancer. A critique of the Mayo Lung Project.

Authors:  R S Fontana; D R Sanderson; L B Woolner; W F Taylor; W E Miller; J R Muhm; P E Bernatz; W S Payne; P C Pairolero; E J Bergstralh
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1991-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  UK Lung Screen (UKLS) nodule management protocol: modelling of a single screen randomised controlled trial of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer.

Authors:  D R Baldwin; S W Duffy; N J Wald; R Page; D M Hansell; J K Field
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2011-02-11       Impact factor: 9.139

View more
  11 in total

1.  US lung cancer trends by histologic type.

Authors:  Denise Riedel Lewis; David P Check; Neil E Caporaso; William D Travis; Susan S Devesa
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-08-11       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Level of Awareness of Various Aspects of Lung Cancer Among College Teachers in India: Impact of Cancer Awareness Programmes in Prevention and Early Detection.

Authors:  Abhishek Shankar; Shubham Roy; Abhidha Malik; G K Rath; P K Julka; Vineet Kumar Kamal; Keshav Barnwal; Sneha Upadhyaya; Rajan Singh; Vivek Srivastava
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.037

3.  Data-driven decision support for radiologists: re-using the National Lung Screening Trial dataset for pulmonary nodule management.

Authors:  James J Morrison; Jason Hostetter; Kenneth Wang; Eliot L Siegel
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Evaluation of Promotional Materials To Promote Low-Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) Screening to High-Risk Consumers and Health Care Providers.

Authors:  Janella N Hudson; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Lauren E Wilson; Vani N Simmons
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 2.037

5.  Recent Spatiotemporal Patterns of US Lung Cancer by Histologic Type.

Authors:  Denise Riedel Lewis; Linda W Pickle; Li Zhu
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2017-05-19

6.  Impact of smoking on health system costs among cancer patients in a retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada.

Authors:  Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai; Claire de Oliveira; Nicole Mittmann; William K Bill Evans; Alice Peter; Rebecca Truscott; Kelvin Kw Chan
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 3.006

7.  Prediction of the 1-Year Risk of Incident Lung Cancer: Prospective Study Using Electronic Health Records from the State of Maine.

Authors:  Xiaofang Wang; Yan Zhang; Shiying Hao; Xuefeng B Ling; Le Zheng; Jiayu Liao; Chengyin Ye; Minjie Xia; Oliver Wang; Modi Liu; Ching Ho Weng; Son Q Duong; Bo Jin; Shaun T Alfreds; Frank Stearns; Laura Kanov; Karl G Sylvester; Eric Widen; Doff B McElhinney
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2019-05-16       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 8.  Perceptions of lung cancer screening and smoking behavior change among Chinese immigrants: A systematic review.

Authors:  Fang Lei; Ying Zheng
Journal:  Tob Induc Dis       Date:  2021-04-16       Impact factor: 2.600

Review 9.  Weaknesses and Pitfalls of Using Mice and Rats in Cancer Chemoprevention Studies.

Authors:  Yukui Ma; Yuping Jia; Lichan Chen; Lewis Ezeogu; Baofa Yu; Ningzhi Xu; D Joshua Liao
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 4.207

10.  PRMDA: personalized recommendation-based MiRNA-disease association prediction.

Authors:  Zhu-Hong You; Luo-Pin Wang; Xing Chen; Shanwen Zhang; Xiao-Fang Li; Gui-Ying Yan; Zheng-Wei Li
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-09-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.