Editorials: Controversies in Family Medicine

Should Family Physicians Routinely Screen for Lung Cancer in High-Risk Populations? Yes : CT-Based Screening Is Complex but Worthwhile

 

Am Fam Physician. 2014 Jul 15;90(2):online.

  Related U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement: Screening for Lung Cancer: Recommendation Statement

  Related Putting Prevention into Practice: Screening for Lung Cancer

  Related POEM: One in Five Patients Overdiagnosed with Lung Cancer Screeening

  Related editorial: Should Family Physicians Routinely Screen for Lung Cancer in High-Risk Populations? No: The USPSTF's Recommendation for Lung Cancer Screening Is Overreaching

This is one in a series of pro/con editorials discussing controversial issues in family medicine.

In December 2013, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a level B recommendation in support of annual computed tomography (CT)–based lung cancer screening in specific high-risk populations, defined as persons 55 to 80 years of age who have a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.1 In making this recommendation, the USPSTF joined several professional societies that have recently endorsed lung cancer screening, including the American Cancer Society 2 and the American College of Chest Physicians.3

This broad support follows the publication of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), in which more than 50,000 adults 55 to 74 years of age with a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years who were currently smoking or had quit within the past 15 years were randomized to three annual low-dose chest CT scans or three annual chest radiographs.4 The study met its primary end point; CT-based screening was associated with a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality and a 6.7% reduction in all-cause mortality. The number needed to screen (NNS) to prevent one lung cancer–related death was 320, which compares favorably with that reported for other cancer screening modalities. For mammography, the NNS is 377 for women 60 to 69 years of age and 1,139 for those 50 to 59 years of age5; for fecal occult blood testing, the NNS is 1,250 for persons 45 to 74 years of age.6

Despite this clear mortality benefit, several questions have arisen about the feasibility of widespread lung cancer screening. These include issues pertaining to false-positive findings, morbidity of diagnostic and treatment interventions, risks of radiation exposure, costs, and impact on smoking patterns. Understanding these considerations requires placing the NLST in the context of other cancer screening efforts.

In the CT arm of the NLST, approximately 24% of all screening studies had positive findings, which were defined broadly as a noncalcified pulmonary nodule of at least 4 mm, lung consolidation or obstructive atelectasis, nodule enlargement, or nodules with suspicious attenuation.7 However, only 4% of these positive findings were ultimately determined to be lung cancer.4 The 23% false-positive rate is similar to that of flexible sigmoidoscopy (27% for men and 17% for women).8 In addition, only about 10% of follow-up evaluations for positive findings entailed invasive procedures (e.g., percutaneous biopsy, bronchoscopy, resection); the other 90% resulted only in additional radiographic studies.4 Although the 1.4% complication rate reported for invasive procedures resulting from lung cancer screening seems higher than the 0.3% rate reported for colonoscopy,9 this figure includes therapeutic resections in addition to diagnostic biopsies. An analogous estimate for colorectal cancer screening would need to account for colectomies.

The potential harms of radiation from CT have been highlighted in a number of high-profile reports. In one model, it was estimated that if 50% of all current or former U.S. smokers 50 to 75 years of age receive annual CT screening, 36,000 radiation-related lung cancers would result, a 1.8% increase over baseline.10 Not only does the mortality benefit of CT screening for lung cancer considerably outweigh this potential risk, but the average per-scan radiation exposure assumed for this projection was more than twice the amount received by participants in the NLST (5 vs. 1.8 millisieverts). Additionally, low-dose CT is performed rapidly (single breath-hold) and without intravenous contrast media, thereby avoiding the risks of nephrotoxicity and allergic reaction, and obviating requirements for vascular access and physician presence.

Smoking cessation remains the best way to decrease lung cancer risk. For a 75-year-old male smoker with a history of more than 40 pack-years, the cumulative risk of lung cancer is 16%. In contrast, the cumulative risks of lung cancer by 75 years of age in men who stopped smoking at ages 60, 50, 40, and 30 fall to 10%, 6%, 3%, and 2%, respectively.11 There is concern that widely available lung cancer screening could reduce smoking cessation rates, which would decrease screening benefits and cost-effectiveness.12 However, long-term smoking abstinence and relapse rates are similar among persons with consistently negative screening results and those with positive screening results.13

Adherence to age- and smoking-related eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening is key for mortality benefits. Offering screening to persons at lower risk of lung cancer, those with life-limiting comorbid conditions, or those unlikely to complete curative surgical resection will likely undermine screening benefits. Furthermore, screening should be performed in settings that can provide a coordinated process for candidate selection, screening, interpretation of results, counseling, evaluation of positive screening results, cancer treatment, and smoking cessation.

Broadening lung cancer screening from the 33 NLST sites—mainly academic medical centers—to a nationwide effort will be complex. CT-based lung cancer screening should not be offered to all individuals, nor should it be provided by all medical facilities. Nonetheless, when offered to the appropriate population in the appropriate context, it will reduce the number of deaths caused by this difficult disease.

Address correspondence to David E. Gerber, MD, at david.gerber@utsouthwestern.edu. Reprints are not available from the author.

Author disclosure: No relevant financial affiliations.

REFERENCES

show all references

1. Moyer VA. Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(5):330–338....

2. Wender R, Fontham ET, Barrera E Jr, et al. American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63(2):107–117.

3. Detterbeck FC, Mazzone PJ, Naidich DP, Back PB. Screening for lung cancer: diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed.: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2013;143(5 suppl):e78S–e92S.

4. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395–409.

5. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):727–737.

6. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1996; 348(9040):1472–1477.

7. Aberle DR, Berg CD, Black WC, et al. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. The National Lung Screening Trial: overview and study design. Radiology. 2011;258(1):243–253.

8. Croswell JM, Kramer BS, Kreimer AR, et al. Cumulative incidence of false-positive results in repeated, multimodal cancer screening. Ann Fam Med. 2009;7(3):212–222.

9. Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Liles E, Beil TL, Fu R. Screening for colorectal cancer: a targeted, updated systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(9):638–658.

10. Brenner DJ. Radiation risks potentially associated with low-dose CT screening of adult smokers for lung cancer. Radiology. 2004;231(2):440–445.

11. Peto R, Darby S, Deo H, Silcocks P, Whitley E, Doll R. Smoking, smoking cessation, and lung cancer in the UK since 1950: combination of national statistics with two case-control studies. BMJ. 2000;321(7257):323–329.

12. McMahon PM, Kong CY, Bouzan C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer in the United States. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6(11):1841–1848.

13. Anderson CM, Yip R, Henschke CI, et al. Smoking cessation and relapse during a lung cancer screening program. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(12):3476–3483.


 

Copyright © 2014 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact afpserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions


More in AFP


Editor's Collections


Related Content


More in Pubmed

MOST RECENT ISSUE


Dec 1, 2016

Access the latest issue of American Family Physician

Read the Issue


Email Alerts

Don't miss a single issue. Sign up for the free AFP email table of contents.

Sign Up Now

Navigate this Article