Dataset Information

Effects of low-dose computed tomography on lung cancer screening: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Nelson mortality results were presented in September 2018. Four other randomized control trials (RCTs) were also reported the latest mortality outcomes in 2018 and 2019. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis to update the evidence and investigate the benefits and harms of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in lung cancer screening.

Methods

Detailed electronic database searches were performed to identify reports of RCTs that comparing LDCT to any other type of lung cancer screening. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using random effects models.

Results

We identified nine RCTs (n =?97,244 participants). In pooled analyses LDCT reduced lung cancer mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.76-0.90, I² =?1%) but had no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90-1.00). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) confirmed the results of our meta-analysis. Subgroup defined by high quality trials benefitted from LDCT screening in reducing lung cancer mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73-0.91, I² =?7%), whereas no benefit observed in other low quality RCTs. LDCT was associated with detection of a significantly higher number of early stage lung cancers than the control. No significant difference (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.30-1.33) was found in mortality after invasive procedures between two groups.

Conclusions

In meta-analysis based on sufficient evidence demonstrated by TSA suggests that LDCT screening is superiority over usual care in lung cancer survival. The benefit of LDCT is expected to be heavily influenced by the risk of lung cancer in the different target group (smoking status, Asian) being screened.

SUBMITTER: Huang KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6625016 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of low-dose computed tomography on lung cancer screening: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis.

Huang Kai-Lin KL Wang Shih-Yuan SY Lu Wan-Chen WC Chang Ya-Hui YH Su Jian J Lu Yen-Ta YT

BMC pulmonary medicine 20190711 1

<h4>Background</h4>The Nelson mortality results were presented in September 2018. Four other randomized control trials (RCTs) were also reported the latest mortality outcomes in 2018 and 2019. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis to update the evidence and investigate the benefits and harms of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in lung cancer screening.<h4>Methods</h4>Detailed electronic database searches were performed to identify reports of RCTs that comparing LDCT to any other type of lung ...[more]

PMID: 31296196

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceScreening for lung cancer has the potential to reduce mortality, but in addition to detecting aggressive tumors, screening will also detect indolent tumors that otherwise may not cause clinical symptoms. These overdiagnosis cases represent an important potential harm of screening because they incur additional cost, anxiety, and morbidity associated with cancer treatment.ObjectiveTo estimate overdiagnosis in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST).Design, setting, and participantsWe used data from the NLST, a randomized trial comparing screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) vs chest radiography (CXR) among 53 452 persons at high risk for lung cancer observed for 6.4 years, to estimate the excess number of lung cancers in the LDCT arm of the NLST compared with the CXR arm.Main outcomes and measuresWe calculated 2 measures of overdiagnosis: the probability that a lung cancer detected by screening with LDCT is an overdiagnosis (PS), defined as the excess lung cancers detected by LDCT divided by all lung cancers detected by screening in the LDCT arm; and the number of cases that were considered overdiagnosis relative to the number of persons needed to screen to prevent 1 death from lung cancer.ResultsDuring follow-up, 1089 lung cancers were reported in the LDCT arm and 969 in the CXR arm of the NLST. The probability is 18.5% (95% CI, 5.4%-30.6%) that any lung cancer detected by screening with LDCT was an overdiagnosis, 22.5% (95% CI, 9.7%-34.3%) that a non-small cell lung cancer detected by LDCT was an overdiagnosis, and 78.9% (95% CI, 62.2%-93.5%) that a bronchioalveolar lung cancer detected by LDCT was an overdiagnosis. The number of cases of overdiagnosis found among the 320 participants who would need to be screened in the NLST to prevent 1 death from lung cancer was 1.38.Conclusions and relevanceMore than 18% of all lung cancers detected by LDCT in the NLST seem to be indolent, and overdiagnosis should be considered when describing the risks of LDCT screening for lung cancer.

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:ImportanceLung cancer screening has been widely implemented in Europe and the US. However, there is little evidence on participation and diagnostic yields in population-based lung cancer screening in China.ObjectiveTo assess the participation rate and detection rate of lung cancer in a population-based screening program and the factors associated with participation.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used data from the Cancer Screening Program in Urban China from October 2013 to October 2019, with follow-up until March 10, 2020. The program is conducted at centers in 8 cities in Henan Province, China. Eligible participants were aged 40 to 74 and were evaluated for a high risk for lung cancer using an established risk score system.Main outcomes and measuresOverall and group-specific participation rates by common factors, such as age, sex, and educational level, were calculated. Differences in participation rates between those groups were compared. The diagnostic yield of both screening and nonscreening groups was calculated.ResultsThe study recruited 282 377 eligible participants and included 55 428 with high risk for lung cancer; the mean (SD) age was 55.3 (8.1) years, and 34 966 participants (63.1%) were men. A total of 22 260 participants underwent LDCT (participation rate, 40.16%; 95% CI, 39.82%-40.50%). The multivariable logistic regression model showed that female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.52-1.78), former smoking (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13-1.41), lack of physical activity (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.24), family history of lung cancer (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.66-1.79), and 7 other factors were associated with increased participation of LDCT screening. Overall, at 6-year follow-up, 78 participants in the screening group (0.35%; 95% CI, 0.29%-0.42%) and 125 in the nonscreening group (0.38%; 95% CI, 0.33%-0.44%) had lung cancer detected, which resulted in an odds ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.70-1.23; P = .61).Conclusions and relevanceThe low participations rate in the program studied suggests that an improved strategy is needed. These findings may provide useful information for designing effective population-based lung cancer screening strategies in the future.

Project description:IntroductionSeveral studies have proved that Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) is a potential candidate for realizing precision screening. The effectiveness of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer has been proved to reduce lung cancer specific and overall mortality, but the cost-effectiveness of diverse screening strategies remained unclear.MethodsThe comparative cost-effectiveness analysis used a Markov state-transition model to assess the potential effect and costs of the screening strategies incorporating PRS or not. A hypothetical cohort of 300,000 heavy smokers entered the study at age 50-74 years and were followed up until death or age 79 years. The model was run with a cycle length of 1 year. All the transition probabilities were validated and the performance value of PRS was extracted from published literature. A societal perspective was adopted and cost parameters were derived from databases of local medical insurance bureau. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted.ResultsThe strategy incorporating PRS was estimated to obtain an ICER of CNY 156,691.93 to CNY 221,741.84 per QALY gained compared with non-screening with the initial start age range across 50-74 years. The strategy that screened using LDCT alone from 70-74 years annually could obtain an ICER of CNY 80,880.85 per QALY gained, which was the most cost-effective strategy. The introduction of PRS as an extra eligible criteria was associated with making strategies cost-saving but also lose the capability of gaining more LYs compared with LDCT screening alone.ConclusionThe PRS-based conjunctive screening strategy for lung cancer screening in China was not cost-effective using the willingness-to-pay threshold of 1 time Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, and the optimal screening strategy for lung cancer still remains to be LDCT screening for now. Further optimization of the screening modality can be useful to consider adoption of PRS and prospective evaluation remains a research priority.

Dataset Information

Effects of low-dose computed tomography on lung cancer screening: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Effects of low-dose computed tomography on lung cancer screening: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets