David H Howard1, Thomas B Richards2, Peter B Bach3, Michelle C Kegler4, Carla J Berg4. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Department of Behavior Science and Health Education, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening recommendations are based on results from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). The authors determined how the screening-eligible US population differs from NLST participants in terms of characteristics that affect their ability to benefit from screening. METHODS: The authors identified respondents to the 2012 Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a national survey of individuals aged ≥50 years who are eligible for screening based on US Preventive Services Task Force and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services criteria. Comorbidities, life expectancy, smoking history, and other characteristics were compared between the screening-eligible population and NLST participants. RESULTS: The authors estimated that in 2013, 8.4 million individuals (95% confidence interval, 7.9-8.9 million individuals) would have met the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening established by the US Preventive Services Task Force. Compared with NLST participants, HRS screening-eligible respondents were older, more likely to be current smokers, and more likely to have been diagnosed with comorbidities. The 5-year survival rate was 87% in the HRS screening-eligible individuals versus 93% in the NLST participants (P<.001, based on a 2-sided test). Life expectancy was 18.7 years in the HRS screening-eligible individuals versus 21.2 years in the NLST participants. CONCLUSIONS: The US population eligible for lung cancer screening is probably less likely to benefit from early detection than NLST participants because they face a high risk of death from competing causes. The results of the current study highlight the need for smoking cessation interventions targeting those patients eligible for screening and tools to help clinicians determine the potential benefits of screening in individual patients.
BACKGROUND:Lung cancer screening recommendations are based on results from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). The authors determined how the screening-eligible US population differs from NLST participants in terms of characteristics that affect their ability to benefit from screening. METHODS: The authors identified respondents to the 2012 Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a national survey of individuals aged ≥50 years who are eligible for screening based on US Preventive Services Task Force and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services criteria. Comorbidities, life expectancy, smoking history, and other characteristics were compared between the screening-eligible population and NLST participants. RESULTS: The authors estimated that in 2013, 8.4 million individuals (95% confidence interval, 7.9-8.9 million individuals) would have met the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening established by the US Preventive Services Task Force. Compared with NLST participants, HRS screening-eligible respondents were older, more likely to be current smokers, and more likely to have been diagnosed with comorbidities. The 5-year survival rate was 87% in the HRS screening-eligible individuals versus 93% in the NLST participants (P<.001, based on a 2-sided test). Life expectancy was 18.7 years in the HRS screening-eligible individuals versus 21.2 years in the NLST participants. CONCLUSIONS: The US population eligible for lung cancer screening is probably less likely to benefit from early detection than NLST participants because they face a high risk of death from competing causes. The results of the current study highlight the need for smoking cessation interventions targeting those patients eligible for screening and tools to help clinicians determine the potential benefits of screening in individual patients.
Authors: Jan M Eberth; Rebecca Qiu; Swann A Adams; Ramzi G Salloum; Nathanial Bell; Amanda K Arrington; Suzanne K Linder; Reginald F Munden Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2014-07-21 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Edward F Patz; Paul Pinsky; Constantine Gatsonis; Jorean D Sicks; Barnett S Kramer; Martin C Tammemägi; Caroline Chiles; William C Black; Denise R Aberle Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: David H Howard; Florence K Tangka; Laura C Seeff; Lisa C Richardson; Donatus U Ekwueme Journal: Health Econ Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; Jonathan D Clapp; Kathy L Clingan; Ilana F Gareen; David A Lynch; Pamela M Marcus; Paul F Pinsky Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-11-22 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Robert J Volk; Suzanne K Linder; Viola B Leal; Vance Rabius; Paul M Cinciripini; Geetanjali R Kamath; Reginald F Munden; Therese B Bevers Journal: Prev Med Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: 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 Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-03-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Ahmed Jamal; Israel T Agaku; Erin O'Connor; Brian A King; John B Kenemer; Linda Neff Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2014-11-28 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Louise M Henderson; Laura M Jones; Mary W Marsh; Thad Benefield; M Patricia Rivera; Paul L Molina Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Li C Cheung; Christine D Berg; Philip E Castle; Hormuzd A Katki; Anil K Chaturvedi Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Srinadh Annangi; Snigdha Nutalapati; Marilyn G Foreman; Rathi Pillai; Eric L Flenaugh Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2018-05-04
Authors: Nikki M Carroll; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Caroline A Joyce; William Kinnard; Eric J Harker; Virginia Hall; Julie S Steiner; Erica Blum-Barnett; Debra P Ritzwoller Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Elizabeth A Regan; Katherine E Lowe; Barry J Make; David A Lynch; Gregory L Kinney; Matthew J Budoff; Song Shou Mao; Debra Dyer; Jeffrey L Curtis; Russell P Bowler; MeiLan K Han; Terri H Beaty; John E Hokanson; Elizabeth Kern; Stephen Humphries; Douglas Curran-Everett; Edwin J R van Beek; Edwin K Silverman; James D Crapo; James H Finigan Journal: Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis Date: 2019-07-24
Authors: Peter J Mazzone; Gerard A Silvestri; Lesley H Souter; Tanner J Caverly; Jeffrey P Kanne; Hormuzd A Katki; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Frank C Detterbeck Journal: Chest Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Peter J Mazzone; Gerard A Silvestri; Lesley H Souter; Tanner J Caverly; Jeffrey P Kanne; Hormuzd A Katki; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Frank C Detterbeck Journal: Chest Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 9.410