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.

0 Followers
 · 
117 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: With the publication of the national lung cancer screening trial (NLST), screening for lung cancer is expected to become more commonplace. The discovery of pulmonary nodules that require further management will, therefore, increase as well and will generate a growing need for tissue given the recent inroads in the pursuit of individualized therapies for lung cancer. This, coupled with imaging advances in screening process, have all conspired to raise the bar on the limits of the bronchoscope, especially in the pursuit of small peripheral lesions. This review highlights advances in navigational bronchoscopy and tissue processing which may help the bronchoscopist of the 21st century meet these and other challenges.
    03/2012; 1(1). DOI:10.1007/s13665-011-0002-9
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Concerns [R. A. Hubbard and D. L. Miglioretti, Biometrics 69, No. 1, 245–253 (2013; Zbl 1270.62139)].
    Biometrics 12/2013; 69(4):1084. DOI:10.1111/biom.12116 · 1.52 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The diagnostic research process can be divided into five phases, designed to establish the clinical utility of a new diagnostic test - the index test. The aim of the present review is to illustrate the study designs that are appropriate for each diagnostic phase, using clinical examples regarding liver fibrosis diagnosed with transient elastography when possible. Phase 0 is the pre-clinical pilot phase during which the validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the index test are assessed in healthy and diseased people. Phase 1 is designed to describe the distribution of the index test results in healthy people and its normal values. Phase 2 comprises studies designed to estimate the accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of the index test in discriminating between diseased and non-diseased people in a clinically relevant population. Phase 2A studies allow the comparison of the accuracy of different index tests; phase 2B studies aim to evaluate the possible harms of incorporating the index test in a diagnostic-therapeutic strategy. In phase 3, diagnostic test-therapeutic randomized clinical trials aim to assess the benefits and harms of the new diagnostic-therapeutic strategy versus the present strategy. Phase 4 comprises large surveillance cohort studies that aim to assess the effectiveness of the new diagnostic-therapeutic strategy in clinical practice. As common in clinical research, putting excessive weight on the results of single studies and trials is likely to divert from the totality of evidence reached through the systematic reviews of these studies, conducted with rigorous methodology and statistical methods. (Hepatology 2013;).
    Hepatology 07/2014; 60(1). DOI:10.1002/hep.26948 · 11.19 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
53 Downloads
Available from
May 15, 2014