BACKGROUND: The optimum screening policy for lung cancer is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To identify efficient computed tomography (CT) screening scenarios in which relatively more lung cancer deaths are averted for fewer CT screening examinations. DESIGN: Comparative modeling study using 5 independent models. DATA SOURCES: The National Lung Screening Trial; the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening trial; the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; and the U.S. Smoking History Generator. TARGET POPULATION: U.S. cohort born in 1950. TIME HORIZON: Cohort followed from ages 45 to 90 years. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: 576 scenarios with varying eligibility criteria (age, pack-years of smoking, years since quitting) and screening intervals. OUTCOME MEASURES: Benefits included lung cancer deaths averted or life-years gained. Harms included CT examinations, false-positive results (including those obtained from biopsy/surgery), overdiagnosed cases, and radiation-related deaths. RESULTS OF BEST-CASE SCENARIO: The most advantageous strategy was annual screening from ages 55 through 80 years for ever-smokers with a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and ex-smokers with less than 15 years since quitting. It would lead to 50% (model ranges, 45% to 54%) of cases of cancer being detected at an early stage (stage I/II), 575 screening examinations per lung cancer death averted, a 14% (range, 8.2% to 23.5%) reduction in lung cancer mortality, 497 lung cancer deaths averted, and 5250 life-years gained per the 100,000-member cohort. Harms would include 67,550 false-positive test results, 910 biopsies or surgeries for benign lesions, and 190 overdiagnosed cases of cancer (3.7% of all cases of lung cancer [model ranges, 1.4% to 8.3%]). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The number of cancer deaths averted for the scenario varied across models between 177 and 862; the number of overdiagnosed cases of cancer varied between 72 and 426. LIMITATIONS: Scenarios assumed 100% screening adherence. Data derived from trials with short duration were extrapolated to lifetime follow-up. CONCLUSION: Annual CT screening for lung cancer has a favorable benefit-harm ratio for individuals aged 55 through 80 years with 30 or more pack-years' exposure to smoking. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.
BACKGROUND: The optimum screening policy for lung cancer is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To identify efficient computed tomography (CT) screening scenarios in which relatively more lung cancer deaths are averted for fewer CT screening examinations. DESIGN: Comparative modeling study using 5 independent models. DATA SOURCES: The National Lung Screening Trial; the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening trial; the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; and the U.S. Smoking History Generator. TARGET POPULATION: U.S. cohort born in 1950. TIME HORIZON: Cohort followed from ages 45 to 90 years. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: 576 scenarios with varying eligibility criteria (age, pack-years of smoking, years since quitting) and screening intervals. OUTCOME MEASURES: Benefits included lung cancer deaths averted or life-years gained. Harms included CT examinations, false-positive results (including those obtained from biopsy/surgery), overdiagnosed cases, and radiation-related deaths. RESULTS OF BEST-CASE SCENARIO: The most advantageous strategy was annual screening from ages 55 through 80 years for ever-smokers with a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and ex-smokers with less than 15 years since quitting. It would lead to 50% (model ranges, 45% to 54%) of cases of cancer being detected at an early stage (stage I/II), 575 screening examinations per lung cancer death averted, a 14% (range, 8.2% to 23.5%) reduction in lung cancer mortality, 497 lung cancer deaths averted, and 5250 life-years gained per the 100,000-member cohort. Harms would include 67,550 false-positive test results, 910 biopsies or surgeries for benign lesions, and 190 overdiagnosed cases of cancer (3.7% of all cases of lung cancer [model ranges, 1.4% to 8.3%]). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The number of cancer deaths averted for the scenario varied across models between 177 and 862; the number of overdiagnosed cases of cancer varied between 72 and 426. LIMITATIONS: Scenarios assumed 100% screening adherence. Data derived from trials with short duration were extrapolated to lifetime follow-up. CONCLUSION: Annual CT screening for lung cancer has a favorable benefit-harm ratio for individuals aged 55 through 80 years with 30 or more pack-years' exposure to smoking. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.
Authors: William D Hazelton; Suresh H Moolgavkar; Stanley B Curtis; Jan M Zielinski; J Patrick Ashmore; Daniel Krewski Journal: J Toxicol Environ Health A Date: 2006-06
Authors: Ida J Korfage; Harry J de Koning; Monique Roobol; Fritz H Schröder; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2005-12-02 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Carola A van Iersel; Harry J de Koning; Gerrit Draisma; Willem P T M Mali; Ernst Th Scholten; Kristiaan Nackaerts; Mathias Prokop; J Dik F Habbema; Mathijs Oudkerk; Rob J van Klaveren Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Kendra L Schwartz; Heather Crossley-May; Fawn D Vigneau; Karl Brown; Mousumi Banerjee Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Nanda Horeweg; Carlijn M van der Aalst; Erik Thunnissen; Kristiaan Nackaerts; Carla Weenink; Harry J M Groen; Jan-Willem J Lammers; Joachim G Aerts; Ernst T Scholten; Joost van Rosmalen; Willem Mali; Matthijs Oudkerk; Harry J de Koning Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2013-04-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Anil K Chaturvedi; Hormuzd A Katki; Stephanie A Kovalchik; Martin Tammemagi; Christine D Berg; Neil E Caporaso; Tom L Riley; Mary Korch; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: E Cardis; E S Gilbert; L Carpenter; G Howe; I Kato; B K Armstrong; V Beral; G Cowper; A Douglas; J Fix Journal: Radiat Res Date: 1995-05 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Linda L Humphrey; Mark Deffebach; Miranda Pappas; Christina Baumann; Kathryn Artis; Jennifer Priest Mitchell; Bernadette Zakher; Rongwei Fu; Christopher G Slatore Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 25.391
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
Authors: Neel P Chudgar; Peter R Bucciarelli; Elizabeth M Jeffries; Nabil P Rizk; Bernard J Park; Prasad S Adusumilli; David R Jones Journal: Thorac Surg Clin Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 1.750
Authors: Chyke A Doubeni; Debra P Ritzwoller; Katharine A Rendle; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Robert T Greenlee; Stacey Honda; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Pamela M Marcus; Mary E Cooley; Anil Vachani; Rafael Meza; Caryn Oshiro; Michael J Simoff; Mitchell D Schnall; Elisabeth F Beaber; V Paul Doria-Rose Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2019-12-23