Andreas Stang1, Martin Schuler, Bernd Kowall, Kaid Darwiche, Hilmar Kühl, Karl-Heinz Jöckel. 1. Center for Clinical Epidemiology; Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University Hospital Essen, School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Boston University, USA, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, West German Cancer Center, Clinic for Internal Medicine (Tumor Research), University Hospital Essen, Department of Thoracic Oncology, Ruhrlandklinik, University Hospital Essen, Department of Interventional Pneumology, Ruhrlandklinik, University Hospital Essen, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University Hospital Essen.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is now debated whether the screening of heavy smokers for lung cancer with low dose computed tomography (low dose CT) might lower their mortality due to lung cancer. We use data from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in the USA to predict the likely effects of such screening in Germany. METHODS: The number of heavy smokers aged 55-74 in Germany was extrapolated from survey data obtained by the Robert Koch Institute. Published data from the NLST were then used to estimate the likely effects of low dose CT screening of heavy smokers in Germany. RESULTS: If low dose CT screening were performed on 50% of the heavy smokers in Germany aged 55-74, an estimated 1 329 506 persons would undergo such screening. If the screening were repeated annually, then, over three years, 916 918 screening CTs would reveal suspect lesions, and the diagnosis of lung cancer would be confirmed thereafter in 32 826 persons. At least one positive test result in three years would be obtained in 39.1% of the participants (519 837 persons). 4155 deaths from lung cancer would be prevented over 6.5 years, and the number of persons aged 55-74 who die of lung cancer in Germany would fall by 2.6%. 12 449 persons would have at least one complication, and 1074 persons would die in the 60 days following screening. CONCLUSION: The screening of heavy smokers for lung cancer can lower their risk of dying of lung cancer by 20% in relative terms, corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 0.3 percentage points. These figures can provide the background for a critical discussion of the putative utility of this type of screening in Germany.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: It is now debated whether the screening of heavy smokers for lung cancer with low dose computed tomography (low dose CT) might lower their mortality due to lung cancer. We use data from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in the USA to predict the likely effects of such screening in Germany. METHODS: The number of heavy smokers aged 55-74 in Germany was extrapolated from survey data obtained by the Robert Koch Institute. Published data from the NLST were then used to estimate the likely effects of low dose CT screening of heavy smokers in Germany. RESULTS: If low dose CT screening were performed on 50% of the heavy smokers in Germany aged 55-74, an estimated 1 329 506 persons would undergo such screening. If the screening were repeated annually, then, over three years, 916 918 screening CTs would reveal suspect lesions, and the diagnosis of lung cancer would be confirmed thereafter in 32 826 persons. At least one positive test result in three years would be obtained in 39.1% of the participants (519 837 persons). 4155 deaths from lung cancer would be prevented over 6.5 years, and the number of persons aged 55-74 who die of lung cancer in Germany would fall by 2.6%. 12 449 persons would have at least one complication, and 1074 persons would die in the 60 days following screening. CONCLUSION: The screening of heavy smokers for lung cancer can lower their risk of dying of lung cancer by 20% in relative terms, corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 0.3 percentage points. These figures can provide the background for a critical discussion of the putative utility of this type of screening in Germany.
Authors: Helmut Prosch; Michael Studnicka; Edith Eisenhuber; Horst Olschewski; Elisabeth Stiefsohn; Sylvia Hartl; Christian Herold; Otto Burghuber; Gerhard Mostbeck Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: T Frauenfelder; M A Puhan; R Lazor; C von Garnier; J Bremerich; T Niemann; A Christe; X Montet; O Gautschi; W Weder; M Kohler Journal: Respiration Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 3.580
Authors: John K Field; Denise R Aberle; Nasser Altorki; David R Baldwin; Carolyn Dresler; Stephen W Duffy; Peter Goldstraw; Fred R Hirsch; Jesper Holst Pedersen; Harry J de Koning; James L Mulshine; Daniel C Sullivan; Ming-Sound Tsao; William D Travis Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 15.609
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: P Kamtsiuris; M Lange; R Hoffmann; A Schaffrath Rosario; S Dahm; R Kuhnert; B M Kurth Journal: Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 1.513
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: 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: John K Field; Rob van Klaveren; Jesper H Pedersen; Ugo Pastorino; Eugino Paci; Nikolauss Becker; Maurizo Infante; Matthijs Oudkerk; Harry J de Koning Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Lars Henning Schmidt; Benedikt Vietmeier; Gerrit Kaleschke; Christoph Schülke; Dennis Görlich; Christoph Schliemann; Torsten Kessler; Arik Bernard Schulze; Boris Buerke; Andreas Kuemmel; Michael Thrull; Rainer Wiewrodt; Helmut Baumgartner; Wolfgang E Berdel; Michael Mohr Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 3.240