Thomas B Richards1, V Paul Doria-Rose2, Ashwini Soman3, Carrie N Klabunde4, Ralph S Caraballo5, Simone C Gray6, Keisha A Houston7, Mary C White6. 1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: trichards@cdc.gov. 2. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland. 3. Cyberdata Technologies, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Office of Disease Prevention, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland. 5. Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 6. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 7. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; Division of Emergency and Environmental Health Services, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Prior studies suggest overuse of nonrecommended lung cancer screening tests in U.S. community practice and underuse of recommended tests. METHODS: Data from the 2010 and 2015 National Health Interview Surveys was analyzed from 2016 to 2018. Prevalence, populations, and number of chest computed tomography (CT) and chest x-ray tests were estimated for people who did and did not meet U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for lung cancer screening, among people aged ≥40 years without lung cancer. RESULTS: In 2015, among those who met USPSTF criteria, 4.4% (95% CI=3.0%, 6.6%), or 360,000 (95% CI=240,000, 535,000) people reported lung cancer screening with a chest CT; and 8.5% (95% CI=6.5%, 11.1%), or 689,000 (95% CI=526,000, 898,000) people reported a chest x ray. Among those who did not meet USPSTF criteria, 2.3% (95% CI=2.0%, 2.6%), or 3,259,000 (95% CI=2,850,000, 3,724,000) people reported a chest x ray; and 1.3% (95% CI=1.1%, 1.5%), or 1,806,000 (95% CI=1,495,000, 2,173,000) people reported a chest CT. The estimated population meeting USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening in 2015 was 8,098,000 (95% CI=7,533,000, 8,702,000), which was smaller than the 9,620,000 people (95% CI=8,960,000, 10,325,000) in 2010. CONCLUSIONS: The number of adults inappropriately screened for lung cancer greatly exceeds the number screened according to USPSTF recommendations, the prevalence of appropriate lung cancer screening is low, and the population meeting USPSTF criteria is shrinking. To realize the potential benefits of screening, better processes to appropriately triage eligible individuals to screening, plus screening with a USPSTF-recommended test, would be beneficial. Published by Elsevier Inc.
INTRODUCTION: Prior studies suggest overuse of nonrecommended lung cancer screening tests in U.S. community practice and underuse of recommended tests. METHODS: Data from the 2010 and 2015 National Health Interview Surveys was analyzed from 2016 to 2018. Prevalence, populations, and number of chest computed tomography (CT) and chest x-ray tests were estimated for people who did and did not meet U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for lung cancer screening, among people aged ≥40 years without lung cancer. RESULTS: In 2015, among those who met USPSTF criteria, 4.4% (95% CI=3.0%, 6.6%), or 360,000 (95% CI=240,000, 535,000) people reported lung cancer screening with a chest CT; and 8.5% (95% CI=6.5%, 11.1%), or 689,000 (95% CI=526,000, 898,000) people reported a chest x ray. Among those who did not meet USPSTF criteria, 2.3% (95% CI=2.0%, 2.6%), or 3,259,000 (95% CI=2,850,000, 3,724,000) people reported a chest x ray; and 1.3% (95% CI=1.1%, 1.5%), or 1,806,000 (95% CI=1,495,000, 2,173,000) people reported a chest CT. The estimated population meeting USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening in 2015 was 8,098,000 (95% CI=7,533,000, 8,702,000), which was smaller than the 9,620,000 people (95% CI=8,960,000, 10,325,000) in 2010. CONCLUSIONS: The number of adults inappropriately screened for lung cancer greatly exceeds the number screened according to USPSTF recommendations, the prevalence of appropriate lung cancer screening is low, and the population meeting USPSTF criteria is shrinking. To realize the potential benefits of screening, better processes to appropriately triage eligible individuals to screening, plus screening with a USPSTF-recommended test, would be beneficial. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Martin M Oken; Willam G Hocking; Paul A Kvale; Gerald L Andriole; Saundra S Buys; Timothy R Church; E David Crawford; Mona N Fouad; Claudine Isaacs; Douglas J Reding; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Barbara O'Brien; Lawrence R Ragard; Joshua M Rathmell; Thomas L Riley; Patrick Wright; Neil Caparaso; Ping Hu; Grant Izmirlian; Paul F Pinsky; Philip C Prorok; Barnett S Kramer; Anthony B Miller; John K Gohagan; Christine D Berg Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Samir Soneji; JaeWon Yang; Nichole T Tanner; Rui Dang; Gerard A Silvestri; William Black Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Joshua A Roth; Sean D Sullivan; Bernardo H L Goulart; Arliene Ravelo; Joanna C Sanderson; Scott D Ramsey Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Jonathan D Clapp; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Peter J Mazzone; Gerard A Silvestri; Sheena Patel; Jeffrey P Kanne; Linda S Kinsinger; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Guy Soo Hoo; Frank C Detterbeck Journal: Chest Date: 2018-02-17 Impact factor: 9.410
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
Authors: Ahmed Jamal; David M Homa; Erin O'Connor; Stephen D Babb; Ralph S Caraballo; Tushar Singh; S Sean Hu; Brian A King Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2015-11-13 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Arica White; Trevor D Thompson; Mary C White; Susan A Sabatino; Janet de Moor; Paul V Doria-Rose; Ann M Geiger; Lisa C Richardson Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2017-03-03 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Thomas J Roberts; Inga T Lennes; Saif Hawari; Lecia V Sequist; Elyse R Park; Henning Willers; Angela Frank; Henning Gaissert; Jo-Anne Shepard; David Ryan Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-12-26
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: Glen B Taksler; Elisabeth F P Peterse; Isarah Willems; Kevin Ten Haaf; Erik E L Jansen; Inge M C M de Kok; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Harry J de Koning; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Jordan M Neil; Yuchiao Chang; Brett Goshe; Nancy Rigotti; Irina Gonzalez; Saif Hawari; Lauren Ballini; Jennifer S Haas; Caylin Marotta; Amy Wint; Kim Harris; Sydney Crute; Efren Flores; Elyse R Park Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2021-06-30
Authors: Eduardo R Núñez; Tanner J Caverly; Sanqian Zhang; Mark E Glickman; Shirley X Qian; Jacqueline H Boudreau; Christopher G Slatore; Donald R Miller; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-07-01