Lung Cancer Screening: An Update, Discussion, and Look Ahead
- 116 Downloads
Over the past few years there has been a great deal of debate about the status of lung cancer screening. The debate has focused on at least three areas: the unmet need to prove a mortality reduction from the screening tests being studied, the potential for these screening tests to produce harm, and the possible cost-effectiveness of an image-based screening program. In this manuscript, I review the chest imaging cohort and controlled trials that have been added to the evidence base over the past few years. I then discuss the evidence related to the areas that are currently debated, describe the ongoing trials that will help to clarify these issues, and speculate about the future.
KeywordsLung cancer Screening Bias Over-diagnosis Lung nodules Cost-effectiveness
Dr. Mazzone served as a consultant at an advisory board meeting for the company Oncimmune; they are developing a blood test for lung cancer detection.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance
- 3.Roberts HC, Patsios D, Paul NS, et al.: Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography: Canadian experience. CARJ 2007, 58:225–235.Google Scholar
- 6.Fasola G, Belvedere O, Aita M, et al.: Low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer and pleural mesothelioma in an asbestos-exposed population; Baseline results of a prospective, nonrandomized feasibility trial—An Alpe-Adria Thoracic Oncology Multidisciplinary Group Study (ATOM 002). The Oncologist 2007, 12:1215–1224.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.• Infante M, Cavuto S, Lutman FR, et al.: A randomized study of lung cancer screening with spiral computed tomography. Three-year results from the DANTE trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009, 180:445–453. This randomized, controlled trial of chest CT screening for lung cancer reports outcomes at 33 months of follow-up, longer than any other controlled trial to date. A stage shift and mortality reduction was not seen, though the study is relatively small and early in its follow-up.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.• Kawachi R, Watanabe S, Asamura H: Clinicopathological characteristics of screen-detected lung cancers. J Thorac Oncol 2009, 4:615–619. This report from Japan is a retrospective review of lung cancers resected after detection clinically, versus those detected through screening. It highlights some of the differences in the cancers detected, which may impact our interpretation of noncontrolled screening trials.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.• van Klaveren RJ, Oudkerk M, Prokop M, et al.: Management of lung nodules detected by volume CT scanning. N Engl J Med 2009, 361:2221–2229. This study describes the use of volumetric measurements in lung nodule assessment as part of a controlled lung cancer screening trial. It highlights the need to determine strategies that minimize the impact of false-positive findings.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.• Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, et al.: Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med 2009, 361:849–857. This study shows us the relatively large amounts of ionizing radiation individuals are exposed to from current medical imaging. Lung cancer screening CT programs would add to this.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.• Silvestri GA, Nietert PJ, Zoller J, et al.: Attitudes towards screening for lung cancer among smokers and their non-smoking counterparts. Thorax 2007, 62:126–130. This study highlights the difficulty of taking a screening program from the trial setting to a clinical setting. Many people surveyed who would qualify for screening using common criteria would choose not to participate or not to have a screen-detected cancer treated. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar