A Comparative Modeling Analysis of Risk-Based Lung Cancer Screening Strategies
- PMID: 31566216
- PMCID: PMC7225672
- DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djz164
A Comparative Modeling Analysis of Risk-Based Lung Cancer Screening Strategies
Abstract
Background: Risk-prediction models have been proposed to select individuals for lung cancer screening. However, their long-term effects are uncertain. This study evaluates long-term benefits and harms of risk-based screening compared with current United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations.
Methods: Four independent natural history models were used to perform a comparative modeling study evaluating long-term benefits and harms of selecting individuals for lung cancer screening through risk-prediction models. In total, 363 risk-based screening strategies varying by screening starting and stopping age, risk-prediction model used for eligibility (Bach, PLCOm2012, or Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool [LCDRAT]), and risk threshold were evaluated for a 1950 US birth cohort. Among the evaluated outcomes were percentage of individuals ever screened, screens required, lung cancer deaths averted, life-years gained, and overdiagnosis.
Results: Risk-based screening strategies requiring similar screens among individuals ages 55-80 years as the USPSTF criteria (corresponding risk thresholds: Bach = 2.8%; PLCOm2012 = 1.7%; LCDRAT = 1.7%) averted considerably more lung cancer deaths (Bach = 693; PLCOm2012 = 698; LCDRAT = 696; USPSTF = 613). However, life-years gained were only modestly higher (Bach = 8660; PLCOm2012 = 8862; LCDRAT = 8631; USPSTF = 8590), and risk-based strategies had more overdiagnosed cases (Bach = 149; PLCOm2012 = 147; LCDRAT = 150; USPSTF = 115). Sensitivity analyses suggest excluding individuals with limited life expectancies (<5 years) from screening retains the life-years gained by risk-based screening, while reducing overdiagnosis by more than 65.3%.
Conclusions: Risk-based lung cancer screening strategies prevent considerably more lung cancer deaths than current recommendations do. However, they yield modest additional life-years and increased overdiagnosis because of predominantly selecting older individuals. Efficient implementation of risk-based lung cancer screening requires careful consideration of life expectancy for determining optimal individual stopping ages.
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press.
Figures
Comment in
-
Basing Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening on Individualized Risk Calculators Should Save More Lives, but Life Expectancy Matters.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 May 1;112(5):429-430. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz165. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020. PMID: 31566223 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
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.
-
Implications of Nine Risk Prediction Models for Selecting Ever-Smokers for Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening.Ann Intern Med. 2018 Jul 3;169(1):10-19. doi: 10.7326/M17-2701. Epub 2018 May 15. Ann Intern Med. 2018. PMID: 29800127 Free PMC article.
-
USPSTF2013 versus PLCOm2012 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria (International Lung Screening Trial): interim analysis of a prospective cohort study.Lancet Oncol. 2022 Jan;23(1):138-148. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00590-8. Epub 2021 Dec 11. Lancet Oncol. 2022. PMID: 34902336 Free PMC article.
-
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
-
Analysis of lung cancer risk model (PLCOM2012 and LLPv2) performance in a community-based lung cancer screening programme.Thorax. 2020 Aug;75(8):661-668. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-214626. Epub 2020 Jul 6. Thorax. 2020. PMID: 32631933 Free PMC article.
-
Risk prediction models for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and critical appraisal.Cancer Med. 2021 Oct;10(20):7265-7276. doi: 10.1002/cam4.4226. Epub 2021 Aug 20. Cancer Med. 2021. PMID: 34414682 Free PMC article.
-
Risk-based lung cancer screening in heavy smokers: a benefit-harm and cost-effectiveness modeling study.BMC Med. 2024 Feb 19;22(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s12916-024-03292-4. BMC Med. 2024. PMID: 38369461 Free PMC article.
-
Implementation of lung cancer screening: what are the main issues?Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2021 Feb;10(2):1050-1063. doi: 10.21037/tlcr-20-985. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2021. PMID: 33718044 Free PMC article. Review.
-
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.
References
-
- Moyer VA, on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(5):330–338. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
