Richard M Hoffman1,2, Rami P Atallah3, Roger D Struble4, Robert G Badgett3. 1. University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA. richard-m-hoffman@uiowa.edu. 2. Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA. richard-m-hoffman@uiowa.edu. 3. The University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, Wichita, KS, USA. 4. University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening on lung cancer (LC) outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Meta-analyze LDCT lung cancer screening trials. METHODS: We identified studies by searching PubMed, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov , and reference lists from retrieved publications. We abstracted data on study design features, stage I LC diagnoses, LC and overall mortality, false positive results, harm from invasive diagnostic procedures, overdiagnosis, and significant incidental findings. We assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We used random-effects models to calculate relative risks and assessed effect modulators with subgroup analyses and meta-regression. RESULTS: We identified 9 studies that enrolled 96,559 subjects. The risk of bias across studies was judged to be low. Overall, LDCT screening significantly increased the detection of stage I LC, RR = 2.93 (95% CI, 2.16-3.98), I2 = 19%, and reduced LC mortality, RR = 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75-0.93), I2 = 0%. The number needed to screen to prevent an LC death was 265. Women had a lower risk of LC death (RR = 0.69, 95% CI, 0.40-1.21) than men (RR = 0.86, 95% CI, 0.66-1.13), p value for interaction = 0.11. LDCT screening did not reduce overall mortality, RR = 0.96 (95% CI, 0.91-1.01), I2 = 0%. The pooled false positive rate was 8% (95% CI, 4-18); subjects with false positive results had < 1 in 1000 risk of major complications following invasive diagnostic procedures. The most valid estimates for overdiagnosis and significant incidental findings were 8.9% and 7.5%, respectively. DISCUSSION: LDCT screening significantly reduced LC mortality, though not overall mortality, with women appearing to benefit more than men. The estimated risks for false positive results, screening complications, overdiagnosis, and incidental findings were low. Long-term survival data were available only for North American and European studies limiting generalizability.
BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening on lung cancer (LC) outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Meta-analyze LDCT lung cancer screening trials. METHODS: We identified studies by searching PubMed, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov , and reference lists from retrieved publications. We abstracted data on study design features, stage I LC diagnoses, LC and overall mortality, false positive results, harm from invasive diagnostic procedures, overdiagnosis, and significant incidental findings. We assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We used random-effects models to calculate relative risks and assessed effect modulators with subgroup analyses and meta-regression. RESULTS: We identified 9 studies that enrolled 96,559 subjects. The risk of bias across studies was judged to be low. Overall, LDCT screening significantly increased the detection of stage I LC, RR = 2.93 (95% CI, 2.16-3.98), I2 = 19%, and reduced LC mortality, RR = 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75-0.93), I2 = 0%. The number needed to screen to prevent an LC death was 265. Women had a lower risk of LC death (RR = 0.69, 95% CI, 0.40-1.21) than men (RR = 0.86, 95% CI, 0.66-1.13), p value for interaction = 0.11. LDCT screening did not reduce overall mortality, RR = 0.96 (95% CI, 0.91-1.01), I2 = 0%. The pooled false positive rate was 8% (95% CI, 4-18); subjects with false positive results had < 1 in 1000 risk of major complications following invasive diagnostic procedures. The most valid estimates for overdiagnosis and significant incidental findings were 8.9% and 7.5%, respectively. DISCUSSION: LDCT screening significantly reduced LC mortality, though not overall mortality, with women appearing to benefit more than men. The estimated risks for false positive results, screening complications, overdiagnosis, and incidental findings were low. Long-term survival data were available only for North American and European studies limiting generalizability.
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Timothy R Church; Richard M Fagerstrom; Barbara Galen; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Jonathan Goldin; John K Gohagan; Bruce Hillman; Carl Jaffe; Barnett S Kramer; David Lynch; Pamela M Marcus; Mitchell Schnall; Daniel C Sullivan; Dorothy Sullivan; Carl J Zylak Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Hilary A Robbins; Christine D Berg; Li C Cheung; Anil K Chaturvedi; Hormuzd A Katki Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: N Becker; E Motsch; M-L Gross; A Eigentopf; C P Heussel; H Dienemann; P A Schnabel; M Eichinger; D-E Optazaite; M Puderbach; M Wielpütz; H-U Kauczor; J Tremper; S Delorme Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 15.609
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: Harry J de Koning; Carlijn M van der Aalst; Pim A de Jong; Ernst T Scholten; Kristiaan Nackaerts; Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Jan-Willem J Lammers; Carla Weenink; Uraujh Yousaf-Khan; Nanda Horeweg; Susan van 't Westeinde; Mathias Prokop; Willem P Mali; Firdaus A A Mohamed Hoesein; Peter M A van Ooijen; Joachim G J V Aerts; Michael A den Bakker; Erik Thunnissen; Johny Verschakelen; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Joan E Walter; Kevin Ten Haaf; Harry J M Groen; Matthijs Oudkerk Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rob J van Klaveren; Matthijs Oudkerk; Mathias Prokop; Ernst T Scholten; Kristiaan Nackaerts; Rene Vernhout; Carola A van Iersel; Karien A M van den Bergh; Susan van 't Westeinde; Carlijn van der Aalst; Erik Thunnissen; Dong Ming Xu; Ying Wang; Yingru Zhao; Hester A Gietema; Bart-Jan de Hoop; Harry J M Groen; Geertruida H de Bock; Peter van Ooijen; Carla Weenink; Johny Verschakelen; Jan-Willem J Lammers; Wim Timens; Dik Willebrand; Aryan Vink; Willem Mali; Harry J de Koning Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-12-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Marcell Csanádi; Andrea Gini; Kevin Ten Haaf; Rita Bendes; Ahti Anttila; Carlo Senore; Harry J de Koning Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-08-18 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Asha Bonney; Reem Malouf; Corynne Marchal; David Manners; Kwun M Fong; Henry M Marshall; Louis B Irving; Renée Manser Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-08-03
Authors: Jonathan Shuter; Krishna P Reddy; Emily P Hyle; Cassandra A Stanton; Nancy A Rigotti Journal: Lancet HIV Date: 2021-08-27 Impact factor: 16.070
Authors: Sarah H Nash; Garrett L Zimpelman; Keri N Miller; James H Clark; Carla L Britton Journal: Int J Circumpolar Health Date: 2022-12 Impact factor: 1.941
Authors: John K Field; Daniel Vulkan; Michael P A Davies; David R Baldwin; Kate E Brain; Anand Devaraj; Tim Eisen; John Gosney; Beverley A Green; John A Holemans; Terry Kavanagh; Keith M Kerr; Martin Ledson; Kate J Lifford; Fiona E McRonald; Arjun Nair; Richard D Page; Mahesh K B Parmar; Doris M Rassl; Robert C Rintoul; Nicholas J Screaton; Nicholas J Wald; David Weller; David K Whynes; Paula R Williamson; Gasham Yadegarfar; Rhian Gabe; Stephen W Duffy Journal: Lancet Reg Health Eur Date: 2021-09-11