Screening for lung cancer. Is it worthwhile?

CT Screening for Lung Cancer: Past and Ongoing Studies

It has been widely recognized that the oft-quoted randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of lung cancer screening by chest radiography--studies that were interpreted as showing no benefit--were seriously flawed. We begin by describing the shortcomings of these trials and presenting an analysis of the problems typically encountered in performing RCTs in this area. Screening for lung cancer using computed tomography (CT) has shown that CT offers great superiority over chest radiography in diagnosing small lung cancers in the three studies that performed both CT and chest radiography on all patients. The Early Lung Cancer Action Project (ELCAP), showed that false-positive results can be kept reasonably low and are much less common on repeat screening, and that CT screening can be managed with no notable excess of percutaneous or surgical biopsies when following a well-defined regimen of screening. This regimen details the parameters of the initial CT, the definition of a positive result, and the subsequent work-up of positive results. Following the updated International (I)-ELCAP protocol, it has been further found that (1) the frequency of positive results is low: 15% for the baseline cycle of screening and 6% for the subsequent cycles. (2) The frequency of screen-diagnoses as compared with all diagnoses is 97% or higher. (3) The relative frequency of presurgical Stage I is well over 80%; the median diameter of the screen-diagnosed cases on repeat screening is 8 mm (versus 15 mm at baseline screening). (4) A high percentage of the screen-diagnosed cases were genuine cancers which led to death if not treated. (5) The estimated 8-year cure rate for resected baseline screen-diagnosed lung cancers without evidence of lymph node metastases is 95% and for resected annual repeat cancers is 98%. (6) CT screening appears to be highly cost-effective. These preliminary results of CT screening suggests that the cure rate of screen-diagnosed lung cancer, using the I-ELCAP regimen of screening, may be over 70% as compared with that of usual care of 10% and that of chest radiographic screening of 20%.

CT screening for lung cancer

The Early Lung Cancer Action Project (ELCAP) recently demonstrated that earlier diagnosis of lung cancer can be achieved with CT, and these results have led to considerable demand for CT screening. The advisability of screening seems obvious, as screening has been shown to provide for lung cancer treatment at a relatively early stage, leading to a better chance to avert death from lung cancer than when treatment is prompted by symptoms and/or signs. There are, however, countervailing ideas that CT lung cancer screening has not yet been demonstrated to 'save lives.' Further, it has been stated that CT screening has a notable problem of "overdiagnosis," meaning that screening finds lesions that are not life threatening, leading to unnecessary surgery. These concerns have led to the argument that assessing 'lives saved,' as well as the effects of overdiagnosis, can only be achieved with a randomized, controlled trial comparing CT screening with no screening, using a mortality endpoint. To this end, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has been funded. This randomized, controlled trial is the most expensive screening study ever proposed. It compares CT screening with chest X-ray screening, and its designers envision that it will provide an answer about the benefit of CT screening, or lack thereof, in about 10 years. We do not question the value of the randomized design of 'treatment' trials for comparing competing interventions (treatments), but we have serious concerns about the use of randomization in the evaluation of a diagnostic test, such as CT. We feel that randomization is not necessary for evaluating a diagnostic test and may generate misleading results. Rather, we feel that the desired information is how often and how early is the disease diagnosed using that test. The purpose of this article is to raise the general level of concern about the underpinnings of such randomized 'screening' trials, and to convey some of the evidence that led to our pessimism about the NLST.

Computed tomography screening for lung cancer

The development of CT technology reopened the lung cancer screening debate. Computed tomography screening for lung cancer certainly meets all the criteria required for an appropriate screening test. First and perhaps most importantly, the disease for which the screening is being performed should have a significant prevalence in the population being studied and be a significant health risk for those afflicted with it. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in both men and women, and one of the most lethal of all cancers.

CT screening for lung cancer

Recommendations against screening for lung cancer were based on the lack of a reduction in mortality of the screened group as compared with the control group in randomized control trials. These results were interpreted as showing that early detection of lung cancer as a result of screening did not decrease the mortality rate compared with detection after presentation of symptoms for the populations being screened. Evidence, however, shows that earlier-stage intervention leads to substantially higher rates of survival. Screening, therefore, is an effective means to prevent deaths from this otherwise fatal disease. This article discusses the evidence of both CT and chest radiograph screening.

Screening for lung cancer

Screening for lung cancer has remained controversial since the completion, more than two decades ago, of the three large randomized controlled trials, sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, which led to the recommendation against screening by major medical organizations. Details of the controversy are given, which include concerns about the study design, implementation, and analysis. New evidence about the potential benefit of screening with chest radiography that has emerged since the completion of those trials is reviewed, as well as the results of studies of CT screening for lung cancer.

Early detection in lung cancer. Case finding and screening

There is general agreement that the most effective approach to lung cancer is primary prevention--stop smoking. Richards has proposed the MVROCST--the Monosyllabic Verbal Response Office Cancer Screening Test: "Do you smoke?" If "yes," intervene. If "no," move on. Ample evidence exists that a clear message from a physician to a patient about the importance of stopping smoking makes a difference. In contrast to the maze of arguments and data on early detection, this is something that each physician clearly can and should do. A reduced risk for lung cancer may begin as early as 5 years after cessation of cigarette use. Huuskonen has proposed conceptualizing screening as a coordinated intervention with the goal of identifying populations at risk and working to modify that risk. Primary prevention should be central to any efforts to reduce mortality from lung cancer, and attention to this area needs to increase despite the difficulties and frustration. Despite declining percentages of smokers in the population as a whole, it is estimated that more than 3000 teenagers become regular smokers each day in the United States. In this environment, the question of whether to recommend a CXR or sputum for early detection is not going to disappear in the near future. The NCI has recognized the persistent and important nature of this debate and is currently funding the Prostate, Lung, Colon and Ovary Cancer Screening Trial. This is a large and powerful randomized study of men and women aged 60 to 74. The lung cancer arm is designed to look at the usefulness of a yearly CXR intervention in reducing cancer-specific mortality. The overall power of the study (based on national mortality data) is 0.99 for a 15% reduction in lung cancer mortality and 0.89 for a 10% reduction, with differentially better sensitivity in men than women. The study is currently in progress at multiple sites and will be completed over the next 12 to 14 years. In the meantime, what is the right approach? It is useful in considering this question to return to the concepts of early detection, screening, and case finding. 1. Early detection in lung cancer remains a concept of uncertain applicability because of the unknowns and variability in the natural history of the disease. The available, accessible, and acceptable detection tools appear to be inadequate by current evidence. This is not a static field, however, and new work in the area of biomarkers carries promise for significantly more sensitive and specific techniques. Tockman and colleagues conclude that early detection is conceptually sound, although not currently practical, and further research may expand the role of intervention. In the end, a judgement on early detection in lung cancer must be linked to the proposed setting--screening or case finding. 2. Screening, defined as the application of a test to the general population to define disease risk further with the implied benefit of improved treatment and outcome, cannot be recommended for lung cancer. This is the perspective of the major organizations cited previously, and it is based on admittedly imperfect but nonetheless convincing data. 3. Case finding, the situation of the patient who seeks care and is available for informed discussion and negotiation on possible testing, is a potentially different situation.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Radiographic screening for cancer. Proposed paradigm for requisite research

Computed tomography (CT) imaging as an excellent approach to the detection and characterization of small solitary pulmonary nodules (SSPN) raises three questions: (1) How often does CT imaging lead to detection of SSPN? (2) How often is such an SSPN malignant? (3) If malignant, how curable is it? The first question pertains to decisions about screening use of CT (clinical or mass screening), the second to decisions about screening for SSPN and diagnosis of malignancy given SSPN, and the third--in the context of known curability at ordinary clinical diagnosis--to decisions about screening for SSPN, diagnosis given SSPN and intervention given malignant SSPN. We present a three component study design that addresses these questions. The first is directed primarily to the first question. Some 1000 persons at high risk for lung cancer will be screened for SSPN using screening-type CT. The primary aim is to determine the prevalence of CT-detectable SSPN as a joint function of risk-relevant aspects of the person. The second component addresses the prevalence of malignancy among the detected cases of SSPN. To develop the prevalence function, a larger series of CT-detected SSPN will be obtained by developing a multi-center SSPN "registry." A subsequent, third component will focus on the registered cases of malignant SSPN screening incidentally detected and address their curability on the basis of long-term follow-up. This design, in lieu of a randomized trial, may represent a new paradigm for applied research on radiologic technologies in cancer screening, given its advantages in terms of research efficiency and implications to decisions about diagnostic workup and therapeutic intervention.

What to do when an x-ray film suggests lung cancer

The chest film is one of the most common methods of detecting lung cancer, which often appears as solitary nodules or hilar masses. Once the diagnosis is established, the most effective treatment can be determined and staging of the tumor can be done. Surgical resection is the only cure for non-small-cell carcinoma, although radiotherapy and chemotherapy may shrink some tumors. Because 90% of all cases are caused by smoking, a preventive approach to the disease is crucial. Screening of high-risk patients (ie, smokers with airflow obstruction) using chest films and sputum cytology may aid this approach.