Comparison of the sensitivity of different criteria to select lung cancer patients for screening in a cohort of German patients.
NSCLC
health policy
lung cancer screening
thoracic malignancy
Journal
Cancer medicine
ISSN: 2045-7634
Titre abrégé: Cancer Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101595310
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2023
04 2023
Historique:
revised:
15
12
2022
received:
26
04
2022
accepted:
09
01
2023
medline:
1
5
2023
pubmed:
29
1
2023
entrez:
28
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Trials of CT-based screening for lung cancer have shown a mortality advantage for screening in North America and Europe. Before introducing a nationwide lung cancer screening program in Germany, it is important to assess the criteria used in international trials in the German population. We used data from 3623 lung cancer patients from the data warehouse of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL). We compared the sensitivity of the following lung cancer screening criteria overall and stratified by age and histology: the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST), the 2013 and 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), and an adapted version of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian no race model (adapted PLCOm2012) with 6-year risk thresholds of 1.0%/6 year and 1.7%/6 year. Overall, the adapted PLCOm2012 model (1%/6 years), selected the highest proportion of lung cancer patients for screening (72.4%), followed by the 2021 USPSTF (70.0%), the adapted PLCOm2012 (1.7%/6 year) (57.4%), the 2013 USPTF (57.0%), DLCST criteria (48.7%), and the NLST (48.5%). The adapted PLCOm2012 risk model (1.0%/6 year) had the highest sensitivity for all histological types except for small-cell and large-cell carcinomas (non-significant), whereas the 2021 USPTF selected a higher proportion of patients. The sensitivity levels were higher in males than in females. Using a risk-based selection score resulted in higher sensitivities compared to criteria using dichotomized age and smoking history. However, gender disparities were apparent in all studied eligibility criteria. In light of increasing lung cancer incidences in women, all selection criteria should be reviewed for ways to close this gender gap, especially when implementing a large-scale lung cancer screening program.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36707972
doi: 10.1002/cam4.5638
pmc: PMC10134298
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
8880-8896Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 4;365(5):395-409
pubmed: 21714641
Cancer Med. 2023 Apr;12(7):8880-8896
pubmed: 36707972
PLoS Med. 2014 Dec 02;11(12):e1001764
pubmed: 25460915
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Oct 16;12(10):
pubmed: 33081402
JAMA. 2021 Mar 09;325(10):962-970
pubmed: 33687470
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 6;382(6):503-513
pubmed: 31995683
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2015 Sep;8(9):777-85
pubmed: 26076698
J Thorac Oncol. 2020 Nov;15(11):1738-1747
pubmed: 32822843
Ann Oncol. 2019 Jul 1;30(7):1162-1169
pubmed: 30937431
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013 Apr 15;187(8):848-54
pubmed: 23348977
Int J Epidemiol. 2015 Apr;44(2):442-50
pubmed: 25979726
J Thorac Oncol. 2009 May;4(5):608-14
pubmed: 19357536
PLoS One. 2016 Oct 13;11(10):e0164416
pubmed: 27736916
JAMA. 2016 Jun 7;315(21):2300-11
pubmed: 27179989
N Engl J Med. 2013 Feb 21;368(8):728-36
pubmed: 23425165
J Med Screen. 2012 Sep;19(3):154-6
pubmed: 23060474
Public Health Nutr. 2002 Dec;5(6B):1113-24
pubmed: 12639222
N Engl J Med. 2013 Jul 18;369(3):245-254
pubmed: 23863051
Eur J Epidemiol. 2020 Oct;35(10):899-912
pubmed: 32594286