Kevin Ten Haaf1, Harry J de Koning2. 1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: k.tenhaaf@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer in never-smokers ranks among the 10 most common causes of death due to cancer worldwide and in the United States. However, it is unknown whether never-smokers at elevated risk for developing lung cancer may benefit from lung cancer screening. METHODS: The MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN)-Lung microsimulation model was used to assess the effects of lung cancer screening for simulated cohorts of never-smokers at different levels of relative risk (RR) for lung cancer compared with never-smokers at average risk. The benefits and harms of screening were estimated for each cohort and compared with those of a cohort of ever-smokers eligible for lung cancer screening according to the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. RESULTS: The relative lung cancer mortality reduction in never-smokers was higher than the USPSTF eligible cohort (37% compared with 32%). However, the number of life-years gained per lung cancer death averted was lower (10.4 compared with 11.9) and the proportion of overdiagnosed cancers was higher (9.6% compared with 8.4%) for never-smokers compared with the USPSTF eligible cohort, as never-smokers are diagnosed at a later age. The estimated number of screens per lung cancer death averted ranged from 6162 for never-smokers at average risk to 151 for never-smokers with an RR of 35 compared with 353 for the USPSTF eligible cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Never-smokers with RRs of 15 to 35 have similar to better trade-offs between benefits and harms compared with ever-smokers recommended for lung cancer screening by the USPSTF guidelines. For most never-smokers, lung cancer screening is not beneficial.
INTRODUCTION:Lung cancer in never-smokers ranks among the 10 most common causes of death due to cancer worldwide and in the United States. However, it is unknown whether never-smokers at elevated risk for developing lung cancer may benefit from lung cancer screening. METHODS: The MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN)-Lung microsimulation model was used to assess the effects of lung cancer screening for simulated cohorts of never-smokers at different levels of relative risk (RR) for lung cancer compared with never-smokers at average risk. The benefits and harms of screening were estimated for each cohort and compared with those of a cohort of ever-smokers eligible for lung cancer screening according to the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. RESULTS: The relative lung cancer mortality reduction in never-smokers was higher than the USPSTF eligible cohort (37% compared with 32%). However, the number of life-years gained per lung cancer death averted was lower (10.4 compared with 11.9) and the proportion of overdiagnosed cancers was higher (9.6% compared with 8.4%) for never-smokers compared with the USPSTF eligible cohort, as never-smokers are diagnosed at a later age. The estimated number of screens per lung cancer death averted ranged from 6162 for never-smokers at average risk to 151 for never-smokers with an RR of 35 compared with 353 for the USPSTF eligible cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Never-smokers with RRs of 15 to 35 have similar to better trade-offs between benefits and harms compared with ever-smokers recommended for lung cancer screening by the USPSTF guidelines. For most never-smokers, lung cancer screening is not beneficial.
Authors: Robert A Meguid; Craig M Hooker; James Harris; Li Xu; William H Westra; J Timothy Sherwood; Marc Sussman; Stephen M Cattaneo; James Shin; Solange Cox; Joani Christensen; Yelena Prints; Nance Yuan; Jennifer Zhang; Stephen C Yang; Malcolm V Brock Journal: Chest Date: 2010-05-27 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Christopher A Haiman; Daniel O Stram; Lynne R Wilkens; Malcolm C Pike; Laurence N Kolonel; Brian E Henderson; Loïc Le Marchand Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-01-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Frances A Shepherd; José Rodrigues Pereira; Tudor Ciuleanu; Eng Huat Tan; Vera Hirsh; Sumitra Thongprasert; Daniel Campos; Savitree Maoleekoonpiroj; Michael Smylie; Renato Martins; Maximiliano van Kooten; Mircea Dediu; Brian Findlay; Dongsheng Tu; Dianne Johnston; Andrea Bezjak; Gary Clark; Pedro Santabárbara; Lesley Seymour Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-07-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael J Thun; S Jane Henley; David Burns; Ahmedin Jemal; Thomas G Shanks; Eugenia E Calle Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-05-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Kathleen A Cronin; Stephanie Bailey; Donald A Berry; Harry J de Koning; Gerrit Draisma; Hui Huang; Sandra J Lee; Mark Munsell; Sylvia K Plevritis; Peter Ravdin; Clyde B Schechter; Bronislava Sigal; Michael A Stoto; Natasha K Stout; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; John Venier; Marvin Zelen; Eric J Feuer Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Darren R Brenner; Rayjean J Hung; Ming-Sound Tsao; Frances A Shepherd; Michael R Johnston; Steven Narod; Warren Rubenstein; John R McLaughlin Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2010-06-14 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Michael J Thun; Lindsay M Hannan; Lucile L Adams-Campbell; Paolo Boffetta; Julie E Buring; Diane Feskanich; W Dana Flanders; Sun Ha Jee; Kota Katanoda; Laurence N Kolonel; I-Min Lee; Tomomi Marugame; Julie R Palmer; Elio Riboli; Tomotaka Sobue; Erika Avila-Tang; Lynne R Wilkens; Jon M Samet Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2008-09-09 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Deirdre F Sheehan; Steven D Criss; G Scott Gazelle; Pari V Pandharipande; Chung Yin Kong Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kevin Ten Haaf; Jihyoun Jeon; Martin C Tammemägi; Summer S Han; Chung Yin Kong; Sylvia K Plevritis; Eric J Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Ewout W Steyerberg; Rafael Meza Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Marcela Fu; Noémie Travier; Juan Carlos Martín-Sánchez; Jose M Martínez-Sánchez; Carmen Vidal; Montse Garcia Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Giulia Veronesi; David R Baldwin; Claudia I Henschke; Simone Ghislandi; Sergio Iavicoli; Matthijs Oudkerk; Harry J De Koning; Joseph Shemesh; John K Field; Javier J Zulueta; Denis Horgan; Lucia Fiestas Navarrete; Maurizio Valentino Infante; Pierluigi Novellis; Rachael L Murray; Nir Peled; Cristiano Rampinelli; Gaetano Rocco; Witold Rzyman; Giorgio Vittorio Scagliotti; Martin C Tammemagi; Luca Bertolaccini; Natthaya Triphuridet; Rowena Yip; Alexia Rossi; Suresh Senan; Giuseppe Ferrante; Kate Brain; Carlijn van der Aalst; Lorenzo Bonomo; Dario Consonni; Jan P Van Meerbeeck; Patrick Maisonneuve; Silvia Novello; Anand Devaraj; Zaigham Saghir; Giuseppe Pelosi Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Hyae Young Kim; Kyu-Won Jung; Kun Young Lim; Soo-Hyun Lee; Jae Kwan Jun; Jeongseon Kim; Bin Hwangbo; Jin Soo Lee Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 4.679
Authors: Kevin Ten Haaf; Mehrad Bastani; Pianpian Cao; Jihyoun Jeon; Iakovos Toumazis; Summer S Han; Sylvia K Plevritis; Erik F Blom; Chung Yin Kong; Martin C Tammemägi; Eric J Feuer; Rafael Meza; Harry J de Koning Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 13.506