Steven B Markowitz1, Amy Manowitz1, Jeffery A Miller1, James S Frederick1, Amaka C Onyekelu-Eze1, Shannon A Widman1, Lewis D Pepper1, Albert Miller1. 1. Steven B. Markowitz, Amy Manowitz, Amaka C. Onyekelu-Eze, Lewis D. Pepper, and Albert Miller are with Barry Commoner Center for Health and the Environment, Queens College, City University of New York, Flushing, NY. Jeffrey A. Miller is with the Department of Veterans Affairs New Jersey Health Care System East Orange Campus, Department of Radiology, East Orange. James S. Frederick is with United Steelworkers, Health, Safety, and Environment Department, Pittsburgh, PA. Shannon A. Widman is with Duke Office of Clinical Research, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the lung cancer screening yield and stages in a union-sponsored low-dose computerized tomography scan program for nuclear weapons workers with diverse ages, smoking histories, and occupations. METHODS: We implemented a low-dose computerized tomography program among 7189 nuclear weapons workers in 9 nonmetropolitan US communities during 2000 to 2013. Eligibility criteria included age, smoking, occupation, radiographic asbestos-related fibrosis, and a positive beryllium lymphocyte proliferation test. RESULTS: The proportion with screen-detected lung cancer among smokers aged 50 years or older was 0.83% at baseline and 0.51% on annual scan. Of 80 lung cancers, 59% (n = 47) were stage I, and 10% (n = 8) were stage II. Screening yields of study subpopulations who met the National Lung Screening Trial or the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Group 2 eligibility criteria were similar to those found in the National Lung Screening Trial. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized tomography screening for lung cancer among high-risk workers leads to a favorable yield of early-stage lung cancers. Public Health Implications. Health equity and efficiency dictate that screening high-risk workers for lung cancer should be an important public health priority.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the lung cancer screening yield and stages in a union-sponsored low-dose computerized tomography scan program for nuclear weapons workers with diverse ages, smoking histories, and occupations. METHODS: We implemented a low-dose computerized tomography program among 7189 nuclear weapons workers in 9 nonmetropolitan US communities during 2000 to 2013. Eligibility criteria included age, smoking, occupation, radiographic asbestos-related fibrosis, and a positive beryllium lymphocyte proliferation test. RESULTS: The proportion with screen-detected lung cancer among smokers aged 50 years or older was 0.83% at baseline and 0.51% on annual scan. Of 80 lung cancers, 59% (n = 47) were stage I, and 10% (n = 8) were stage II. Screening yields of study subpopulations who met the National Lung Screening Trial or the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Group 2 eligibility criteria were similar to those found in the National Lung Screening Trial. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized tomography screening for lung cancer among high-risk workers leads to a favorable yield of early-stage lung cancers. Public Health Implications. Health equity and efficiency dictate that screening high-risk workers for lung cancer should be an important public health priority.
Authors: William D Travis; Elisabeth Brambilla; Allen P Burke; Alexander Marx; Andrew G Nicholson Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Henrik Wolff; Tapio Vehmas; Panu Oksa; Jorma Rantanen; Harri Vainio Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 5.024
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: 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: Martin C Tammemägi; Timothy R Church; William G Hocking; Gerard A Silvestri; Paul A Kvale; Thomas L Riley; John Commins; Christine D Berg Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Francine L Jacobson; John H M Austin; John K Field; James R Jett; Shaf Keshavjee; Heber MacMahon; James L Mulshine; Reginald F Munden; Ravi Salgia; Gary M Strauss; David J Sugarbaker; Scott J Swanson; William D Travis; Michael T Jaklitsch Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Eui Yup Chung; Young Hoo Shin; Young Wook Kim; Jun Seok Son; Chan Woo Kim; Hyoung Ouk Park; Jun Ho Lee; Seung Hyun Park; Sung Joon Woo; Chang Ho Chae Journal: Ann Occup Environ Med Date: 2021-06-23
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