Resected Lung Cancer Patients Who Would and Would Not Have Met Screening Criteria.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
BACKGROUND: Current eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening may underestimate the risk of malignancy for some individuals. We compared the predicted risk of lung cancer among patients who would have met screening criteria to those who would not have despite being at moderate-risk. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of resected lung cancer patients was performed. The screen eligible group was based on criteria provided by the United States Preventive Services Task Force; age 55 to 80 and a 30 or greater pack-year smoking history. The screen ineligible group was based on criteria provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for a moderate-risk individual not recommended screening; age greater than 50 years, greater than 20 pack-year smoking history, and no history of asbestos exposure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A recently validated risk-prediction model was used to compare the risk of lung cancer across eligibility groups based on measured and imputed patient-level variables. RESULTS: Screen ineligible patients (n = 88) had a lower estimated probability of lung cancer than screen eligible patients (n = 419); 1.3% versus 3.1%, p value less than 0.001. However, 20% of screen ineligible patients had a predicted probability of lung cancer greater than or equal to the prevalence of lung cancer (3.7%) among National Lung Screening Trial participants; 17% of screen ineligible patients had a predicted probability of lung cancer greater than or equal to the American Association for Thoracic Surgery threshold (5%) defining high-risk individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Current eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening underestimate the risk of lung cancer for some individuals who might benefit from lung cancer screening.
