Literature DB >> 24379002

Benefits and harms of computed tomography lung cancer screening strategies: a comparative modeling study for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Harry J de Koning, Rafael Meza, Sylvia K Plevritis, Kevin ten Haaf, Vidit N Munshi, Jihyoun Jeon, Saadet Ayca Erdogan, Chung Yin Kong, Summer S Han, Joost van Rosmalen, Sung Eun Choi, Paul F Pinsky, Amy Berrington de Gonzalez, Christine D Berg, William C Black, Martin C Tammemägi, William D Hazelton, Eric J Feuer, Pamela M McMahon.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24379002      PMCID: PMC4116741          DOI: 10.7326/M13-2316

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  42 in total

1.  Biologically based analysis of lung cancer incidence in a large Canadian occupational cohort with low-dose ionizing radiation exposure, and comparison with Japanese atomic bomb survivors.

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

2.  Prostate cancer diagnosis: the impact on patients' mental health.

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

3.  Influence of sex on lung cancer histology, stage, and survival in a midwestern United States tumor registry.

Authors:  Geoffrey Ringer; J Michael Smith; Amy M Engel; Mary Pat Hendy; Janet Lang
Journal:  Clin Lung Cancer       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 4.785

4.  Risk-based selection from the general population in a screening trial: selection criteria, recruitment and power for the Dutch-Belgian randomised lung cancer multi-slice CT screening trial (NELSON).

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

5.  Race, socioeconomic status and stage at diagnosis for five common malignancies.

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

6.  Characteristics of lung cancers detected by computer tomography screening in the randomized NELSON trial.

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

7.  Targeting of low-dose CT screening according to the risk of lung-cancer death.

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

8.  Effects of low doses and low dose rates of external ionizing radiation: cancer mortality among nuclear industry workers in three countries.

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

Review 9.  Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a systematic review to update the US Preventive services task force recommendation.

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

10.  The National Lung Screening Trial: results stratified by demographics, smoking history, and lung cancer histology.

Authors:  Paul F Pinsky; Timothy R Church; Grant Izmirlian; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-08-26       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  175 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

2.  Results of the national lung cancer screening trial: where are we now?

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

3.  Optimal healthcare decision making under multiple mathematical models: application in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Dimitris Bertsimas; John Silberholz; Thomas Trikalinos
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2016-09-17

4.  Evaluating Lung Cancer Screening Across Diverse Healthcare Systems: A Process Model from the Lung PROSPR Consortium.

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

Review 5.  An evolutionary perspective on field cancerization.

Authors:  Kit Curtius; Nicholas A Wright; Trevor A Graham
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2017-12-08       Impact factor: 60.716

Review 6.  Implementing lung cancer screening in the real world: opportunity, challenges and solutions.

Authors:  Robert J Optican; Caroline Chiles
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2015-08

7.  Case Studies of Gastric, Lung, and Oral Cancer Connect Etiologic Agent Prevalence to Cancer Incidence.

Authors:  Andrew F Brouwer; Marisa C Eisenberg; Rafael Meza
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 12.701

8.  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

9.  Should Never-Smokers at Increased Risk for Lung Cancer Be Screened?

Authors:  Kevin Ten Haaf; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 15.609

10.  Assessing the benefits and harms of low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer.

Authors:  Paul F Pinsky
Journal:  Lung Cancer Manag       Date:  2014
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.