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: 17.81). 04/2010; 152(8):505-12, W176-80. DOI: 10.1059/0003-4819-152-8-201004200-00007
Source: PubMed


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. ( 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


Available from: Jennifer M Croswell,
  • Source
    • "Current studies have shown that not all pulmonary nodules detected by low-dose CT for lung cancer screening are malignant, and low-dose CT results in over-diagnosis caused by false-positive detection (Swensen et al. 2002), (Croswell et al. 2010). A previous report proposed that CT screening for lung cancer should be performed as a baseline. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aim to compare image quality and radiation doses between low-dose CT and follow-up standard diagnostic CT for lung cancer screening. In a single medical institution, 19 subjects who had been screened for lung cancer by low-dose CT before going through follow-up standard diagnostic CT were randomly selected. Both CT image sets for all subjects were independently evaluated by five specialized physicians. There were no significant differences between low-dose CT screening and follow-up standard diagnostic CT for lung cancer screening in all 11 criteria. The concordance rate for the diagnoses was approximately 80% (p < 0.001) for all categories. Agreement of the evaluation of all categories in the final diagnosis exceeded 94% (p < 0.001). Five physicians detecting and characterizing the pulmonary nodules did not recognized the difference between low-dose CT screening and follow-up standard diagnostic CT. With low-dose CT, the effective dose ranged between 1.3 and 3.4 mSv, whereas in the follow-up diagnostic CT, the effective dose ranged between 8.5 and 14.0 mSv. This study suggests that low-dose CT can be effectively used as a follow-up standard diagnostic CT in place of standard-dose CT in order to reduce the radiation dose.
    SpringerPlus 08/2013; 2(1):393. DOI:10.1186/2193-1801-2-393
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bronchoscopically collected cytology specimens are commonly used to obtain a diagnosis of cancer in patients with pulmonary lesions. However, the sensitivity of cytology is suboptimal, especially for peripheral lesions less than 2 cm in diameter. We assessed the performance of a testing algorithm using cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) as part of clinical practice. Bronchial brushing specimens (n = 343) were obtained from patients undergoing bronchoscopy for indeterminate pulmonary lesions. Routine cytology was performed and specimens without a positive diagnosis (n = 294) were analyzed by FISH, using residual brushing material. Pathology-confirmed lung cancer or clinical/radiographic evidence of disease was considered diagnostic of malignancy. Routine cytology had a sensitivity and specificity of 41% (23 of 56) and 100% (45 of 45) for central lesions and 20% (26 of 133) and 100% (109 of 109) for peripheral nodules, respectively. FISH detected an additional 32% of lung cancers (18 central and 43 peripheral) not detectable by cytology alone, while producing false positive diagnoses in 22% (10 of 45) and 6% (6 of 109) benign central and peripheral lesions, respectively. In peripheral nodules, FISH detected (relative to routine cytology) an additional 44% (15 of 34) and 28% (25 of 91) of lung cancers less than 2 cm and 2 cm or more in size, respectively. A positive FISH result had a likelihood ratio of 1.45 and 5.87 for central and peripheral lesions and 3.44 and 15.38 for peripheral nodules less than 2 cm and 2 cm or more in size, respectively. FISH testing significantly increases the detection of lung cancer over routine cytology alone. It is especially useful for peripheral nodules.
    American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 12/2009; 181(5):478-85. DOI:10.1164/rccm.200907-1121OC · 13.00 Impact Factor

  • American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 04/2010; 181(8):773-81. DOI:10.1164/rccm.201001-0045UP · 13.00 Impact Factor
Show more