The Development and Performance of Alternative Criteria for Lung Cancer Screening.

Conventional lung cancer screening eligibility criteria exclude many high-benefit persons. This study evaluated whether alternative simple criteria could better identify persons who would derive high benefit fromlung cancer screening. Visual Abstract. The Development and Performance of Alternative Criteria for Lung Cancer Screening: Conventional lung cancer screening eligibility criteria exclude many high-benefit persons. This study evaluated whether alternative simple criteria could better identify persons who would derive high benefit fromlung cancer screening. Background: The recommendation for lung cancer screening (LCS) developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) may exclude some high-benefit people. Objective: To determine whether alternative criteria can identify these high-benefit people. Design: Model-based projections. Setting: United States. Participants: People from the 1997–2014 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to develop alternative criteria using fast-and-frugal tree algorithms and from the 2014–2018 NHIS and the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for comparisons of USPSTF criteria versus alternative criteria. Measurements: Life-years gained from LCS were estimated using the life-years gained from screening computed tomography (LYFS-CT) model. "High-benefit" was defined as gaining an average of at least 16.2 days of life from 3 annual screenings, which reflects high lung cancer risk and substantial life gains if lung cancer is detected by screening. Results: The final alternative criteria were 1) people who smoked any amount each year for at least 40 years, or 2) people aged 60 to 80 years with at least 40 pack-years of smoking. The USPSTF and alternative criteria selected similar numbers of people for LCS. Compared with the USPSTF criteria, the alternative criteria had higher sensitivity (91% vs. 78%; P < 0.001) and specificity (86% vs. 84%; P < 0.001) for identifying high-benefit people. For racial and ethnic minorities, the alternative criteria provided greater gains in sensitivity than the USPSTF criteria (Black: 83% vs. 56% [ P < 0.001]; Hispanic: 95% vs. 73% [ P  = 0.086]; Asian: 94% vs. 68% [ P  = 0.171]) at similar specificity. The alternative criteria identify high-risk, high-benefit groups excluded by the USPSTF criteria (those with a smoking duration of ≥40 years but <20 pack-years and a quit history of >15 years), many of whom are members of racial and ethnic minorities. Limitation: The results were based on model projections. Conclusion: These results suggest that simple alternative LCS criteria can identify substantially more high-benefit people, especially in some racial and ethnic groups. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Lung Precision Oncology Program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]