Dataset Information

Comparing benefits from many possible computed tomography lung cancer screening programs: extrapolating from the National Lung Screening Trial using comparative modeling.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that in current and former smokers aged 55 to 74 years, with at least 30 pack-years of cigarette smoking history and who had quit smoking no more than 15 years ago, 3 annual computed tomography (CT) screens reduced lung cancer-specific mortality by 20% relative to 3 annual chest X-ray screens. We compared the benefits achievable with 576 lung cancer screening programs that varied CT screen number and frequency, ages of screening, and eligibility based on smoking.

Methods and findings

We used five independent microsimulation models with lung cancer natural history parameters previously calibrated to the NLST to simulate life histories of the US cohort born in 1950 under all 576 programs. 'Efficient' (within model) programs prevented the greatest number of lung cancer deaths, compared to no screening, for a given number of CT screens. Among 120 'consensus efficient' (identified as efficient across models) programs, the average starting age was 55 years, the stopping age was 80 or 85 years, the average minimum pack-years was 27, and the maximum years since quitting was 20. Among consensus efficient programs, 11% to 40% of the cohort was screened, and 153 to 846 lung cancer deaths were averted per 100,000 people. In all models, annual screening based on age and smoking eligibility in NLST was not efficient; continuing screening to age 80 or 85 years was more efficient.

Conclusions

Consensus results from five models identified a set of efficient screening programs that include annual CT lung cancer screening using criteria like NLST eligibility but extended to older ages. Guidelines for screening should also consider harms of screening and individual patient characteristics.

SUBMITTER: McMahon PM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4076275 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing benefits from many possible computed tomography lung cancer screening programs: extrapolating from the National Lung Screening Trial using comparative modeling.

McMahon Pamela M PM Meza Rafael R Plevritis Sylvia K SK Black William C WC Tammemagi C Martin CM Erdogan Ayca A ten Haaf Kevin K Hazelton William W Holford Theodore R TR Jeon Jihyoun J Clarke Lauren L Kong Chung Yin CY Choi Sung Eun SE Munshi Vidit N VN Han Summer S SS van Rosmalen Joost J Pinsky Paul F PF Moolgavkar Suresh S de Koning Harry J HJ Feuer Eric J EJ

PloS one 20140630 6

<h4>Background</h4>The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that in current and former smokers aged 55 to 74 years, with at least 30 pack-years of cigarette smoking history and who had quit smoking no more than 15 years ago, 3 annual computed tomography (CT) screens reduced lung cancer-specific mortality by 20% relative to 3 annual chest X-ray screens. We compared the benefits achievable with 576 lung cancer screening programs that varied CT screen number and frequency, ages of scre ...[more]

PMID: 24979231

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe optimum screening policy for lung cancer is unknown.ObjectiveTo identify efficient computed tomography (CT) screening scenarios in which relatively more lung cancer deaths are averted for fewer CT screening examinations.DesignComparative modeling study using 5 independent models.Data sourcesThe National Lung Screening Trial; the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening trial; the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; and the U.S. Smoking History Generator.Target populationU.S. cohort born in 1950.Time horizonCohort followed from ages 45 to 90 years.PerspectiveSocietal.Intervention576 scenarios with varying eligibility criteria (age, pack-years of smoking, years since quitting) and screening intervals.Outcome measuresBenefits included lung cancer deaths averted or life-years gained. Harms included CT examinations, false-positive results (including those obtained from biopsy/surgery), overdiagnosed cases, and radiation-related deaths.Results of best-case scenarioThe most advantageous strategy was annual screening from ages 55 through 80 years for ever-smokers with a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and ex-smokers with less than 15 years since quitting. It would lead to 50% (model ranges, 45% to 54%) of cases of cancer being detected at an early stage (stage I/II), 575 screening examinations per lung cancer death averted, a 14% (range, 8.2% to 23.5%) reduction in lung cancer mortality, 497 lung cancer deaths averted, and 5250 life-years gained per the 100,000-member cohort. Harms would include 67,550 false-positive test results, 910 biopsies or surgeries for benign lesions, and 190 overdiagnosed cases of cancer (3.7% of all cases of lung cancer [model ranges, 1.4% to 8.3%]).Results of sensitivity analysisThe number of cancer deaths averted for the scenario varied across models between 177 and 862; the number of overdiagnosed cases of cancer varied between 72 and 426.LimitationsScenarios assumed 100% screening adherence. Data derived from trials with short duration were extrapolated to lifetime follow-up.ConclusionAnnual CT screening for lung cancer has a favorable benefit-harm ratio for individuals aged 55 through 80 years with 30 or more pack-years' exposure to smoking.Primary funding sourceNational Cancer Institute.

Project description:ImportanceThe American College of Radiology (ACR) has recognized the importance of minimizing radiation doses used for lung cancer screening (LCS) computed tomography (CT). However, without standard protocols, doses could still be unnecessarily high, reducing screening margin of benefit.ObjectiveTo characterize LCS CT radiation doses and identify factors explaining variation.Design, setting, and participantsWe prospectively collected LCS examination dose metrics, from 2016 to 2017, at US institutions in the University of California, San Francisco International Dose Registry. Institution-level factors were collected through baseline survey. Mixed-effects linear and logistic regression models were estimated using forward variable selection. Results are presented as percentage excess dose and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The analysis was conducted between 2018 and 2019.Main outcomes and measuresLog-transformed measures of (1) mean volume CT dose index (CTDIvol, mGy), reflecting the average radiation dose per slice; (2) mean effective dose (ED, mSv), reflecting the total dose received and estimated future cancer risk; (3) proportion of CT scans using radiation doses above ACR benchmarks (CTDIvol >3 mGy, ED >1 mSv); and (4) proportion of CT scans using radiation doses above 75th percentile of registry doses (CTDIvol >2.7 mGy, ED >1.4 mSv).ResultsData were collected for 12 529 patients undergoing LCS CT scans performed at 72 institutions. Overall, 7232 participants (58%) were men, and the median age was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 60-70). Of 72 institutions, 15 (21%) had median CTDIvol and 47 (65%) had median ED above ACR guidelines. Institutions allowing any radiologists to establish protocols had 44% higher mean CTDIvol (mean dose difference [MDD], 44%; 95% CI, 19%-69%) and 27% higher mean ED (MDD, 27%; 95% CI, 5%-50%) vs those limiting who established protocols. Institutions allowing any radiologist to establish protocols had higher odds of examinations exceeding ACR CTDIvol guidelines (OR, 12.0; 95% CI, 2.0-71.4), and 75th percentile of registry CTDIvol (OR, 19.0; 95% CI, 1.9-186.7) or ED (OR, 8.5; 95% CI, 1.7-42.9). Having lead radiologists establish protocols resulted in lower odds of doses exceeding ACR ED guidelines (OR, 0.01; 95% CI, 0.001-0.1). Employing external vs internal medical physicists was associated with increased odds of exceeding ACR CTDIvol guidelines (OR, 6.1; 95% CI, 1.8-20.8). Having medical physicists establish protocols was associated with decreased odds of exceeding 75th percentile of registry CTDIvol (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.59). Institutions reporting protocol updates as needed had 27% higher mean CTDIvol (MDD, 27%; 95% CI, 8%-45%).Conclusions and relevanceFacilities varied in LCS CT radiation dose distributions. Institutions limiting protocol creation to lead radiologists and having internal medical physicists had lower doses.

Project description:ImportanceDespite the recommendations of lung cancer screening guidelines and the evidence supporting the effectiveness of population-based lung screening, a common barrier to effective lung cancer screening is that the participation rates of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening among individuals with the highest risk are not large. There are limited data from clinical practice regarding whether opportunistic LDCT screening is associated with reduced lung-cancer mortality.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether opportunistic LDCT screening is associated with improved prognosis among adults with lung cancer in mainland China.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included patients diagnosed with lung cancer at Weihai Municipal Hospital Healthcare Group, Weihai City, China, from 2016 to 2021. Data were analyzed from January 2022 to February 2023.ExposuresData collected included demographic indicators, tumor characteristics, comorbidities, blood indexes, and treatment information. Patients were classified into screened and nonscreened groups on the basis of whether or not their lung cancer diagnosis occurred through opportunistic screening.Main outcomes and measuresFollow-up outcome indicators included lung cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality. Propensity score matching (PSM) was adopted to account for potential imbalanced factors between groups. The associations between LDCT screening and outcomes were analyzed using Cox regression models based on the matched data. Propensity score regression adjustment and inverse probability treatment weighting were used for sensitivity analysis.ResultsA total of 5234 patients (mean [SD] baseline age, 61.8 [9.8] years; 2518 [48.1%] female) with complete opportunistic screening information were included in the analytical sample, with 2251 patients (42.91%) receiving their lung cancer diagnosis through opportunistic screening. After 1:1 PSM, 2788 patients (1394 in each group) were finally included. The baseline characteristics of the matched patients were balanced between groups. Opportunistic screening with LDCT was associated with a 49% lower risk of lung cancer death (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.42-0.62) and 46% lower risk of all-cause death (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.45-0.64).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of patients with lung cancer, opportunistic lung cancer screening with LDCT was associated with lower lung cancer mortality and all-cause mortality. These findings suggest that opportunistic screening is an important supplement to population screening to improve prognosis of adults with lung cancer.

Project description:ImportanceThe US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2013 lung cancer screening guidelines, which recommend annual screening for adults aged 55 through 80 years who have a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.ObjectiveTo inform the USPSTF guidelines by estimating the benefits and harms associated with various low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening strategies.Design, setting, and participantsComparative simulation modeling with 4 lung cancer natural history models for individuals from the 1950 and 1960 US birth cohorts who were followed up from aged 45 through 90 years.ExposuresScreening with varying starting ages, stopping ages, and screening frequency. Eligibility criteria based on age, cumulative pack-years, and years since quitting smoking (risk factor-based) or on age and individual lung cancer risk estimation using risk prediction models with varying eligibility thresholds (risk model-based). A total of 1092 LDCT screening strategies were modeled. Full uptake and adherence were assumed for all scenarios.Main outcomes and measuresEstimated lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained (benefits) compared with no screening. Estimated lifetime number of LDCT screenings, false-positive results, biopsies, overdiagnosed cases, and radiation-related lung cancer deaths (harms).ResultsEfficient screening programs estimated to yield the most benefits for a given number of screenings were identified. Most of the efficient risk factor-based strategies started screening at aged 50 or 55 years and stopped at aged 80 years. The 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria were not among the efficient strategies for the 1960 US birth cohort. Annual strategies with a minimum criterion of 20 pack-years of smoking were efficient and, compared with the 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria, were estimated to increase screening eligibility (20.6%-23.6% vs 14.1% of the population ever eligible), lung cancer deaths averted (469-558 per 100 000 vs 381 per 100 000), and life-years gained (6018-7596 per 100 000 vs 4882 per 100 000). However, these strategies were estimated to result in more false-positive test results (1.9-2.5 per person screened vs 1.9 per person screened with the USPSTF strategy), overdiagnosed lung cancer cases (83-94 per 100 000 vs 69 per 100 000), and radiation-related lung cancer deaths (29.0-42.5 per 100 000 vs 20.6 per 100 000). Risk model-based vs risk factor-based strategies were estimated to be associated with more benefits and fewer radiation-related deaths but more overdiagnosed cases.Conclusions and relevanceMicrosimulation modeling studies suggested that LDCT screening for lung cancer compared with no screening may increase lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained when optimally targeted and implemented. Screening individuals at aged 50 or 55 years through aged 80 years with 20 pack-years or more of smoking exposure was estimated to result in more benefits than the 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria and less disparity in screening eligibility by sex and race/ethnicity.

Dataset Information

Comparing benefits from many possible computed tomography lung cancer screening programs: extrapolating from the National Lung Screening Trial using comparative modeling.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

Comparing benefits from many possible computed tomography lung cancer screening programs: extrapolating from the National Lung Screening Trial using comparative modeling.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets