Article

Evidence at the Point of Practice Change Lung Cancer Screening

Archives of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 13.25). 09/2012; 172(18):1-3. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.4287
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT CONTEXT:  Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease, resulting in a very low 5-year survival. Screening may reduce the risk of death from lung cancer. OBJECTIVE:  To conduct a systematic review of the evidence regarding the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). A multisociety collaborative initiative (involving the American Cancer Society, American College of Chest Physicians, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network) was undertaken to create the foundation for development of an evidence-based clinical guideline. DATA SOURCES:  MEDLINE (Ovid: January 1996 to April 2012), EMBASE (Ovid: January 1996 to April 2012), and the Cochrane Library (April 2012). STUDY SELECTION:  Of 591 citations identified and reviewed, 8 randomized trials and 13 cohort studies of LDCT screening met criteria for inclusion. Primary outcomes were lung cancer mortality and all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included nodule detection, invasive procedures, follow-up tests, and smoking cessation. DATA EXTRACTION:  Critical appraisal using predefined criteria was conducted on individual studies and the overall body of evidence. Differences in data extracted by reviewers were adjudicated by consensus. RESULTS:  Three randomized studies provided evidence on the effect of LDCT screening on lung cancer mortality, of which the National Lung Screening Trial was the most informative, demonstrating that among 53 454 participants enrolled, screening resulted in significantly fewer lung cancer deaths (356 vs 443 deaths; lung cancer-specific mortality, 274 vs 309 events per 100 000 person-years for LDCT and control groups, respectively; relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93; absolute risk reduction, 0.33%; P = .004). The other 2 smaller studies showed no such benefit. In terms of potential harms of LDCT screening, across all trials and cohorts, approximately 20% of individuals in each round of screening had positive results requiring some degree of follow-up, while approximately 1% had lung cancer. There was marked heterogeneity in this finding and in the frequency of follow-up investigations, biopsies, and percentage of surgical procedures performed in patients with benign lesions. Major complications in those with benign conditions were rare. CONCLUSION:  Low-dose computed tomography screening may benefit individuals at an increased risk for lung cancer, but uncertainty exists about the potential harms of screening and the generalizability of results.

0 Followers
 · 
81 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease, resulting in a very low 5-year survival. Screening may reduce the risk of death from lung cancer. To conduct a systematic review of the evidence regarding the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). A multisociety collaborative initiative (involving the American Cancer Society, American College of Chest Physicians, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network) was undertaken to create the foundation for development of an evidence-based clinical guideline. MEDLINE (Ovid: January 1996 to April 2012), EMBASE (Ovid: January 1996 to April 2012), and the Cochrane Library (April 2012). Of 591 citations identified and reviewed, 8 randomized trials and 13 cohort studies of LDCT screening met criteria for inclusion. Primary outcomes were lung cancer mortality and all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included nodule detection, invasive procedures, follow-up tests, and smoking cessation. Critical appraisal using predefined criteria was conducted on individual studies and the overall body of evidence. Differences in data extracted by reviewers were adjudicated by consensus. Three randomized studies provided evidence on the effect of LDCT screening on lung cancer mortality, of which the National Lung Screening Trial was the most informative, demonstrating that among 53,454 participants enrolled, screening resulted in significantly fewer lung cancer deaths (356 vs 443 deaths; lung cancer−specific mortality, 274 vs 309 events per 100,000 person-years for LDCT and control groups, respectively; relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93; absolute risk reduction, 0.33%; P = .004). The other 2 smaller studies showed no such benefit. In terms of potential harms of LDCT screening, across all trials and cohorts, approximately 20% of individuals in each round of screening had positive results requiring some degree of follow-up, while approximately 1% had lung cancer. There was marked heterogeneity in this finding and in the frequency of follow-up investigations, biopsies, and percentage of surgical procedures performed in patients with benign lesions. Major complications in those with benign conditions were rare. Low-dose computed tomography screening may benefit individuals at an increased risk for lung cancer, but uncertainty exists about the potential harms of screening and the generalizability of results.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 05/2012; 307(22):2418-29. DOI:10.1001/jama.2012.5521 · 30.39 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 1968, Wilson and Jungner published 10 "principles" for evaluating screening programs (Public Health Papers No. 34. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization), criteria widely used since then. The 4 authors of this review (all current or former members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force) have found a different paradigm more useful for evaluating screening programs. This review was written independently of the USPSTF; the authors speak only for themselves and not for the USPSTF. They suggest evaluating screening programs not as a checklist but as a balance between the magnitude of benefits and the magnitude of harms, each estimated from a systematic review of the evidence. To emphasize a focus on health outcomes, the authors suggest reframing the target of screening as an umbrella concept: the "predictor of poor health." Evaluation groups should weigh health benefits and harms to estimate net benefits and then consider whether these net benefits justify the resources required. The final decision about implementation should be made by a democratic process that considers both the panel's evaluation of the evidence and nonevidence factors (e.g., resources available, other priorities, the informed population's preferences). The authors hope these suggestions stimulate further discussion about the optimal way to evaluate proposed screening programs.
    Epidemiologic Reviews 06/2011; 33(1):20-35. DOI:10.1093/epirev/mxr005 · 7.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The major goal of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is to provide a reliable and accurate source of evidence-based recommendations on a wide range of preventive services. In this article, the USPSTF updates and reviews the process by which it evaluates evidence, determines the certainty and magnitude of net benefit, and gives a final letter grade to recommendations. Because direct evidence about prevention is often unavailable, the Task Force usually considers indirect evidence. To guide its selection of indirect evidence, a "chain of evidence" is constructed within an analytic framework. The Task Force examines evidence of various research designs that addresses the key questions within the framework. New terms have been added to describe the USPSTF's judgment about the evidence for each key question: "convincing," "adequate," or "inadequate." For increased clarity, the USPSTF has changed its description of overall evidence of net benefit for the preventive service from "good," "fair," or "poor" quality to "high," "moderate," or "low" certainty. This rating considers the extent to which an uninterrupted chain of evidence exists across the analytic framework. Individual studies will continue to be judged as being of "good," "fair," or "poor" quality. Using outcomes tables, the USPSTF estimates the magnitude of benefits and the magnitude of harms, and synthesizes them into an estimate of the magnitude of net benefit. Although some judgment is required at all steps, the USPSTF strives to make the process as explicit and transparent as possible. The USPSTF anticipates that its methods for making evidence-based recommendations will continue to evolve.
    Annals of internal medicine 01/2008; 147(12):871-5. · 16.10 Impact Factor