Screening for lung cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kennedy S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4016095 | biostudies-literature | 2014 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Screening for lung cancer.
Kennedy Sean S Baerlocher Mark Otto MO
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20140317 8
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe 5-year overall survival rate of lung cancer patients is approximately 15%. Most patients are diagnosed with advanced-stage disease and have shorter survival rates than patients with early-stage disease. Although screening for lung cancer has the potential to increase early diagnosis, it has not been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality rates. In 1993, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial was initiated specifically to determine whether screening would reduce mortality rates from PLCO cancers.MethodsA total of 77 464 participants, aged 55-74 years, were randomly assigned to the intervention arm of the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial between November 8, 1993, and July 2, 2001. Participants received a baseline chest radiograph (CXR), followed by three annual single-view CXRs at the 10 US screening centers. Cancers were classified as screen detected and nonscreen detected (interval or never screened) and according to tumor histology. The positivity rates of screen-detected cancers and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated. Because 51.6% of the participants were current or former smokers, logistic regression analysis was performed to control for smoking status. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsCompliance with screening decreased from 86.6% at baseline to 78.9% at the last screening. Overall positivity rates were 8.9% at baseline and 6.6%-7.1% at subsequent screenings; positivity rates increased modestly with smoking risk categories (P(trend) < .001). The PPVs for all participants were 2.0% at baseline and 1.1%, 1.5%, and 2.4% at years 1, 2, and 3, respectively; PPVs in current smokers were 5.9% at baseline and 3.3%, 4.2%, and 5.6% at years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. A total of 564 lung cancers were diagnosed, of which 306 (54%) were screen-detected cancers and 87% were non-small cell lung cancers. Among non-small cell lung cancers, 59.6% of screen-detected cancers and 33.3% of interval cancers were early (I-II) stage.ConclusionsThe PLCO Cancer Screening Trial demonstrated the ability to recruit, retain, and screen a large population over multiple years at multiple centers. A higher proportion of screen-detected lung cancers were early stage, but a conclusion on the effectiveness of CXR screening must await final PLCO results, which are anticipated at the end of 2015.
| S-EPMC2873186 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There have been hundreds of publications about overdiagnosis during the past decade describing concern regarding its potential for harms in lung cancer screening. However, the definition and frequency with which it occurs in screening trials remains unclear. This lack of clarity stems from its current definition which is not based on a clinical grounds but instead on an epidemiologic definition that depends on the cause of death. Thus, with the current definition an overdiagnosed cancer can only be diagnosed if the person does not die from the cancer, regardless of whether or not the cancer is aggressive or the treatment successful. Using a definition based on epidemiology rather than the clinical presentation is highly unusual. Furthermore, the frequency of overdiagnosis has also been a cause of great confusion. Prior to the results from the National Lung Screening trial (NLST), concerns were expressed that virtually all CT screen detected cancers would be overdiagnosed, yet the extended follow-up study of the National Lung Screening Trial shows that in essence there were virtually no overdiagnosis. Even more confusing is that it was previously suspected that there was a high rate of overdiagnosis when using chest radiographic screening and therefore as CT is a more sensitive imaging test and finds cancers even earlier, it would be presumed that the overdiagnosis rate for CT would be even be higher. A proposed change in the definition would focus more on the clinical manifestation of the cancer as to its aggressiveness as this can be diagnosed while the patient is alive. Using a definition that is based on clinical features, a cancer that manifests as a nonsolid nodule would be considered overdiagnosed if instead of being recognized as relatively indolent was instead thought to be an aggressive cancer. The concept of overtreatment arises if this nonaggressive cancer were treated aggressively.
| S-EPMC7947395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although there is now strong evidence for the efficacy of low-radiation dose computed tomography in reducing lung cancer mortality, the challenge is to establish screening programmes that have the maximum impact on the disease. In screening programmes, participation rates are a major determinant of the success of the programme. Informed uptake, participation, and adherence (to successive screening rounds) determine the overall impact of the intervention by ensuring the maximum number of people at risk of the disease are screened regularly and therefore have the most chance of benefiting. Existing cancer screening programmes have taught us a great deal about methods that improve participation. Although evidence is emerging for the efficacy of some of those methods in lung cancer screening, there is still much work to do in the specific demographic that is most at risk of lung cancer. This demographic, characterised by higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation, may be less willing to engage with healthcare interventions and present a particular challenge in the process of ensuring informed choice. In this article we review the evidence for improving participation and describe the challenges that need to be addressed to ensure the successful implementation of CT screening programmes.
| S-EPMC7947401 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7560805 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8182722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Poor survival of lung cancer (LC) patients depends on several factors first of all the delay in the diagnosis, considering that the majority of patients have an advanced-stage disease at the time of diagnosis. In this context, use of screening to increase the percentage of early LC detection can play a crucial role. After the preliminary unsatisfactory experiences with chest X-rays and sputum cytology, low dose computed tomography (LDCT) has become the best method for LC screening. In particular, several randomized LDCT screening trials conducted in the last year showed significant reductions in LC mortality in high-risk subjects. This review focuses on both recent advances in LC screening and some open questions.
| S-EPMC7399385 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Non-small cell lung cancer accounts for 75% to 80% of all lung cancers. There is an impetus to find a screening test that can detect non-small cell lung cancer in its early preclinical stages, when surgical resection is most likely to reduce lung cancer mortality. Although earlier randomized controlled trials of lung cancer screening using chest radiography and sputum cytology failed to show reduced lung cancer mortality, CT is a much more sensitive test for detecting small lung nodules, and has generated considerable enthusiasm as a potential contemporary screening tool for lung cancer.
| S-EPMC4307918 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11811788 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) used risk factors for lung cancer (e.g., ≥30 pack-years of smoking and <15 years since quitting) as selection criteria for lung-cancer screening. Use of an accurate model that incorporates additional risk factors to select persons for screening may identify more persons who have lung cancer or in whom lung cancer will develop.MethodsWe modified the 2011 lung-cancer risk-prediction model from our Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial to ensure applicability to NLST data; risk was the probability of a diagnosis of lung cancer during the 6-year study period. We developed and validated the model (PLCO(M2012)) with data from the 80,375 persons in the PLCO control and intervention groups who had ever smoked. Discrimination (area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve [AUC]) and calibration were assessed. In the validation data set, 14,144 of 37,332 persons (37.9%) met NLST criteria. For comparison, 14,144 highest-risk persons were considered positive (eligible for screening) according to PLCO(M2012) criteria. We compared the accuracy of PLCO(M2012) criteria with NLST criteria to detect lung cancer. Cox models were used to evaluate whether the reduction in mortality among 53,202 persons undergoing low-dose computed tomographic screening in the NLST differed according to risk.ResultsThe AUC was 0.803 in the development data set and 0.797 in the validation data set. As compared with NLST criteria, PLCO(M2012) criteria had improved sensitivity (83.0% vs. 71.1%, P<0.001) and positive predictive value (4.0% vs. 3.4%, P=0.01), without loss of specificity (62.9% and. 62.7%, respectively; P=0.54); 41.3% fewer lung cancers were missed. The NLST screening effect did not vary according to PLCO(M2012) risk (P=0.61 for interaction).ConclusionsThe use of the PLCO(M2012) model was more sensitive than the NLST criteria for lung-cancer detection.
| S-EPMC3929969 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine utilization patterns of diagnostic procedures after lung cancer screening among participants enrolled in the National Lung Screening Trial.MethodsUsing a sample of National Lung Screening Trial participants with abstracted medical records, we assessed utilization of imaging, invasive, and surgical procedures after lung cancer screening. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations. For each procedure type, we examined utilization within a year after the screening or until the next screen, whichever came first, across arms (low-dose CT [LDCT] versus chest X-ray [CXR]) and by screening results. We also explored factors associated with having these procedures using multivariable negative binomial regressions.ResultsAfter baseline screening, our sample had 176.5 and 46.7 procedures per 100 person-years for those with a false-positive and negative result, respectively. Invasive and surgical procedures were relatively infrequent. Among those who screened positive, follow-up imaging and invasive procedures were 25% and 34% less frequent in those screened with LDCT, compared with CXR. Postscreening utilization of invasive and surgical procedures was 37% and 34% lower at the first incidence screen compared with baseline. Participants with positive results at baseline were six times more likely to undergo additional imaging than those with normal findings.DiscussionUse of imaging and invasive procedures to evaluate abnormal findings varied by screening modality, with a lower rate for LDCT than CXR. Invasive and surgical workup were less prevalent after subsequent screening examinations compared with baseline screening. Utilization was associated with older age but not gender, race or ethnicity, insurance status, or income.
| S-EPMC10755856 | biostudies-literature