Benefits and harms of computed tomography lung cancer screening strategies: a comparative modeling study for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
- PMID: 24379002
- PMCID: PMC4116741
- DOI: 10.7326/M13-2316
Benefits and harms of computed tomography lung cancer screening strategies: a comparative modeling study for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Abstract
Background: The optimum screening policy for lung cancer is unknown.
Objective: To identify efficient computed tomography (CT) screening scenarios in which relatively more lung cancer deaths are averted for fewer CT screening examinations.
Design: Comparative modeling study using 5 independent models.
Data sources: The 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 population: U.S. cohort born in 1950.
Time horizon: Cohort followed from ages 45 to 90 years.
Perspective: Societal.
Intervention: 576 scenarios with varying eligibility criteria (age, pack-years of smoking, years since quitting) and screening intervals.
Outcome measures: Benefits 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 scenario: The 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 analysis: The 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.
Limitations: Scenarios assumed 100% screening adherence. Data derived from trials with short duration were extrapolated to lifetime follow-up.
Conclusion: Annual 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 source: National Cancer Institute.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Evaluation of the Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force.JAMA. 2021 Mar 9;325(10):988-997. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.1077. JAMA. 2021. PMID: 33687469 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluation of the Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: A Collaborative Modeling Study for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2021 Mar. Report No.: 20-05266-EF-2. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2021 Mar. Report No.: 20-05266-EF-2. PMID: 33750088 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Performance and Cost-Effectiveness of Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening Scenarios in a Population-Based Setting: A Microsimulation Modeling Analysis in Ontario, Canada.PLoS Med. 2017 Feb 7;14(2):e1002225. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002225. eCollection 2017 Feb. PLoS Med. 2017. PMID: 28170394 Free PMC article.
-
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening in the United States: A Comparative Modeling Study.Ann Intern Med. 2019 Dec 3;171(11):796-804. doi: 10.7326/M19-0322. Epub 2019 Nov 5. Ann Intern Med. 2019. PMID: 31683314
-
Breast Cancer Screening With Mammography: An Updated Decision Analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2024 Apr. Report No.: 23-05303-EF-2. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2024 Apr. Report No.: 23-05303-EF-2. PMID: 38718151 Free Books & Documents. Review.
Cited by
-
Current Evidence for a Lung Cancer Screening Program.Port J Public Health. 2024 Apr 22;42(2):133-158. doi: 10.1159/000538434. eCollection 2024 Aug. Port J Public Health. 2024. PMID: 39469231 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Gender-specific outcomes of low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer detection: A retrospective study in Chinese never-smoker population.Cancer Med. 2024 Sep;13(18):e70184. doi: 10.1002/cam4.70184. Cancer Med. 2024. PMID: 39342623 Free PMC article.
-
Estimating the Effects of Cancer Screening in Clinical Practice Settings: The Role of Selective Uptake and Suboptimal Adherence along the Cancer Screening Continuum.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2024 Aug 1;33(8):984-988. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-23-1491. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2024. PMID: 39012954
-
How will lung cancer screening and lung nodule management change the diagnostic and surgical lung cancer landscape?Eur Respir Rev. 2024 Jun 26;33(172):230232. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0232-2023. Print 2024 Apr. Eur Respir Rev. 2024. PMID: 38925794 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Projected effectiveness of lung cancer screening and concurrent smoking cessation support in the Netherlands.EClinicalMedicine. 2024 Apr 8;71:102570. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102570. eCollection 2024 May. EClinicalMedicine. 2024. PMID: 38813448 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. International Journal of Cancer. 2010;127(12):2893–2917. - PubMed
-
- Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics 2013. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2013;63(1):11–30. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials