Peter J Mazzone1, Gerard A Silvestri2, Lesley H Souter3, Tanner J Caverly4, Jeffrey P Kanne5, Hormuzd A Katki6, Renda Soylemez Wiener7, Frank C Detterbeck8. 1. Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: mazzonp@ccf.org. 2. Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 3. CHEST, Glenview, IL. 4. Ann Arbor VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI. 5. University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI. 6. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 7. Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Boston, MA; VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA; Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA. 8. Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part because of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, and increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not. METHODS: Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, and key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached. RESULTS: The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in seven graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus statements. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can impact this balance.
BACKGROUND: Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part because of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, and increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not. METHODS: Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, and key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached. RESULTS: The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in seven graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus statements. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can impact this balance.
Authors: Paul F Pinsky; David S Gierada; William Black; Reginald Munden; Hrudaya Nath; Denise Aberle; Ella Kazerooni Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Ella A Kazerooni; John H M Austin; William C Black; Debra S Dyer; Todd R Hazelton; Ann N Leung; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Reginald F Munden; Sudhakar Pipavath Journal: J Thorac Imaging Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: Joan E Walter; Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Geertruida H de Bock; Uraujh Yousaf-Khan; Harry J M Groen; Carlijn M van der Aalst; Kristiaan Nackaerts; Peter M A van Ooijen; Harry J de Koning; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Matthijs Oudkerk Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Renda Soylemez Wiener; Elisa Koppelman; Rendelle Bolton; Karen E Lasser; Belinda Borrelli; David H Au; Christopher G Slatore; Jack A Clark; Hasmeena Kathuria Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 5.128
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: Stefan Diederich; Michael Thomas; Michael Semik; Horst Lenzen; Nikolaus Roos; Anushe Weber; Walter Heindel; Dag Wormanns Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2004-01-16 Impact factor: 5.315
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: Timothy R Church; William C Black; Denise R Aberle; Christine D Berg; Kathy L Clingan; Fenghai Duan; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; David S Gierada; Gordon C Jones; Irene Mahon; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks; Amanda Jain; Sarah Baum Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kate Brain; Ben Carter; Kate J Lifford; Olivia Burke; Anand Devaraj; David R Baldwin; Stephen Duffy; John K Field Journal: Thorax Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 9.139