Search

Background: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends lung cancer screening among individuals aged 55-80 years with a 30 pack-year cigarette smoking history and, if they are former smokers, those who quit within the past 15 years. Our previous report found that two-thirds of newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer do not meet these criteria; they are reported to be either long-term quitters (≥15 years since quitting) or from a younger age group (age 50-54 years). We aimed to assess survival outcomes in these two subgroups.Methods: For this prospective, observational cohort study we identified and followed up patients aged 50-80 years with lung cancer, with a smoking history of 30 pack-years or more, and included both current smokers and former smokers who quit within the past 30 years. We identified patients from two cohorts in the USA: a hospital cohort (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN) and a community cohort (Olmsted County, MN). Patients were divided into those meeting USPSTF criteria (USPSTF group) versus those not meeting USPSTF criteria (long-term quitters or the younger age group). The main outcome was overall survival at 5 years after diagnosis. 5-year overall survival was analysed with and without matching age and pack-years smoked for long-term quitters. The USPSTF group was subdivided into two age subgroups (55-69 years and 70-80 years) for multivariable regression analysis.Findings: Between Jan 1, 1997, and Dec 31, 2017, 8739 patients with lung cancer were identified and followed up. Median follow-up was 6·5 (IQR 3·8-10·0) years, and median overall survival was 16·9 months (95% CI 16·2-17·5). 5-year overall survival was 27% (95% CI 25-30) in long-term quitters, 22% (19-25) in the younger age group, and 23% (22-24) in the USPSTF group. In both cohorts, 5-year overall survival did not differ significantly between long-term quitters and the USPSTF group (hospital cohort: hazard ratio [HR] 1·02 [95% CI 0·94-1·10]; p=0·72; community cohort: 0·97 [0·75-1·26]; p=0·82); matched analysis showed similar results in both cohorts. 5-year overall survival also did not differ significantly between the younger age group and the USPSTF group in both cohorts (hospital cohort: HR 1·16 [95% CI 0·98-1·38], p=0·08; community cohort: 1·16 [0·74-1·82]; p=0·52); multivariable regression analyses stratified by age group yielded similar findings.Interpretation: Patients with lung cancer who quit 15 or more years before diagnosis and those who are up to 5 years younger than the age cutoff recommended for screening, but otherwise meet USPSTF criteria, have a similar risk of death to those individuals who meet all USPSTF criteria. Individuals in both subgroups could benefit from screening, as expansion of USPSTF screening criteria to include these subgroups could enable earlier detection of lung cancer and improved survival outcomes.Funding: National Institutes of Health and the Mayo Clinic Foundation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States and worldwide. Early detection of lung cancer is an important opportunity for decreasing mortality. Data support using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) of the chest to screen select patients who are at high risk for lung cancer. Lung screening is covered under the Affordable Care Act for individuals with high-risk factors. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) covers annual screening LDCT for appropriate Medicare beneficiaries at high risk for lung cancer if they also receive counseling and participate in shared decision-making before screening. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening provides recommendations for initial and subsequent LDCT screening and provides more detail about LDCT screening. This manuscript focuses on identifying patients at high risk for lung cancer who are candidates for LDCT of the chest and on evaluating initial screening findings., (Copyright © 2018 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.)

Background: Pulmonary nodules are frequently detected during diagnostic chest imaging and as a result of lung cancer screening. Current guidelines for their evaluation are largely based on low-quality evidence, and patients and clinicians could benefit from more research in this area., Methods: In this research statement from the American Thoracic Society, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates reviewed available evidence for pulmonary nodule evaluation, characterized six focus areas to direct future research efforts, and identified fundamental gaps in knowledge and strategies to address them. We did not use formal mechanisms to prioritize one research area over another or to achieve consensus., Results: There was widespread agreement that novel tests (including novel imaging tests and biopsy techniques, biomarkers, and prognostic models) may improve diagnostic accuracy for identifying cancerous nodules. Before they are used in clinical practice, however, better evidence is needed to show that they improve more distal outcomes of importance to patients. In addition, the pace of research and the quality of clinical care would be improved by the development of registries that link demographic and nodule characteristics with patient-level outcomes. Methods to share data from registries are also necessary., Conclusions: This statement may help researchers to develop impactful and innovative research projects and enable funders to better judge research proposals. We hope that it will accelerate the pace and increase the efficiency of discovery to improve the quality of care for patients with pulmonary nodules.

Efforts in lung cancer screening with chest X-ray (CXR) and sputum cytology in the 1970s and 1980s were negative. In the ensuing decade, the early lung cancer action project (ELCAP), and the Mayo screening study showed the promise of low-dose CT. These and other studies led to the National lung screening study (NLST), which showed definitively that low-dose spiral computed tomography had a measurable impact on mortality and could be justified as a tool for lung cancer screening. This review examines the results of past and recent studies of lung cancer screening., (© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)