Article

Cumulative Incidence of False-Positive Test Results in Lung Cancer Screening: A Randomized Trial

National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, and Information Management Services, Rockville, Maryland 20892, USA.
Annals of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 16.1). 04/2010; 152(8):505-12, W176-80. DOI: 10.1059/0003-4819-152-8-201004200-00007
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Direct-to-consumer promotion of lung cancer screening has increased, especially low-dose computed tomography (CT). However, screening exposes healthy persons to potential harms, and cumulative false-positive rates for low-dose CT have never been formally reported.
To quantify the cumulative risk that a person who participated in a 1- or 2-year lung cancer screening examination would receive at least 1 false-positive result, as well as rates of unnecessary diagnostic procedures.
Randomized, controlled trial of low-dose CT versus chest radiography. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00006382)
Feasibility study for the ongoing National Lung Screening Trial.
Current or former smokers, aged 55 to 74 years, with a smoking history of 30 pack-years or more and no history of lung cancer (n = 3190).
Random assignment to low-dose CT or chest radiography with baseline and 1 repeated annual screening; 1-year follow-up after the final screening. Randomization was centralized and stratified by age, sex, and study center.
False-positive screenings, defined as a positive screening with a completed negative work-up or 12 months or more of follow-up with no lung cancer diagnosis.
By using a Kaplan-Meier analysis, a person's cumulative probability of 1 or more false-positive low-dose CT examinations was 21% (95% CI, 19% to 23%) after 1 screening and 33% (CI, 31% to 35%) after 2. The rates for chest radiography were 9% (CI, 8% to 11%) and 15% (CI, 13% to 16%), respectively. A total of 7% of participants with a false-positive low-dose CT examination and 4% with a false-positive chest radiography had a resulting invasive procedure.
Screening was limited to 2 rounds. Follow-up after the second screening was limited to 12 months. The false-negative rate is probably an underestimate.
Risks for false-positive results on lung cancer screening tests are substantial after only 2 annual examinations, particularly for low-dose CT. Further study of resulting economic, psychosocial, and physical burdens of these methods is warranted.
National Cancer Institute.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Jennifer M Croswell, Jul 06, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
127 Views
  • American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 04/2010; 181(8):773-81. DOI:10.1164/rccm.201001-0045UP
  • Source
    Future Oncology 01/2011; 7(1):1-3. DOI:10.2217/fon.10.176
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is an urgent need for blood-based, noninvasive molecular tests to assist in the detection and diagnosis of cancers in a cost-effective manner at an early stage, when curative interventions are still possible. Additionally, blood-based diagnostics can classify tumors into distinct molecular subtypes and monitor disease relapse and response to treatment. Increasingly, biomarker strategies are becoming critical to identify a specific patient subpopulation that is likely to respond to a new therapeutic agent. The improved understanding of the underlying molecular features of common cancers and the availability of a multitude of recently developed technologies to interrogate the genome, transcriptome, proteome and metabolome of tumors and biological fluids have made it possible to develop clinically applicable and cost-effective tests for many common cancers. Overall, the paradigm shift towards personalized and individualized medicine relies heavily on the increased use of diagnostic biomarkers and classifiers to improve diagnosis, management and treatment. International collaborations, involving both the private and public sector will be required to facilitate the development of clinical applications of biomarkers, using rigorous standardized assays. Here, we review the recent technological and scientific advances in this field.
    Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 03/2011; 8(3):142-50. DOI:10.1038/nrclinonc.2010.220