Article    Table of Contents                    Abstract of this article Free    PDF of this article    Summary for Patients    Summary for Patients (PDF)    Figures/Tables List    Related articles in Annals    Articles citing this article  Services    Send comment/rapid response letter    Published comments/rapid response letters    Notify a friend about this article    Alert me when this article is cited    Add to Personal Archive    Download to Citation Manager    ACP Search    Get Permissions  Google Scholar    Search for Related Content  Social Bookmarking

What's this?

PubMed

Related Articles in PubMed    PubMed Citation    PubMed

CLINICAL GUIDELINES

Lung Cancer Screening: Recommendation Statement

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force*

4 May 2004 | Volume 140 Issue 9 | Pages 738-739

This statement summarizes the current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for lung cancer and the supporting scientific evidence and updates the 1996 recommendations on this topic. In 1996, the USPSTF recommended against screening for lung cancer (a grade D recommendation). The Task Force now uses an explicit process in which the balance of benefits and harms is determined exclusively by the quality and magnitude of the evidence. As a result, current letter grades are based on different criteria than those used in 1996. The complete information on which this statement is based, including evidence tables and references, is available in the accompanying article in this issue and in the systematic evidence review on this topic, available through the USPSTF Web site (http://www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov) and the National Guideline Clearinghouse (http://www.guideline.gov). The complete USPSTF recommendation statement (which includes a brief review of the supporting evidence) and the summary of the evidence are also available in print through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Publications Clearinghouse (telephone, 800-358-9295; e-mail, ahrqpubs{at}ahrq.gov).

*For a list of the members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, see the Appendix.

Summary of the Recommendation

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against screening asymptomatic persons for lung cancer with either low-dose computerized tomography (LDCT), chest x-ray (CXR), sputum cytology, or a combination of these tests. This is a grade I recommendation. (See Appendix Table 1 for a description of the USPSTF classification of recommendations.)

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Appendix Table 1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Grades and Recommendations

 

The USPSTF found fair evidence that screening with LDCT, CXR, or sputum cytology can detect lung cancer at an earlier stage than lung cancer would be detected in an unscreened population; however, the USPSTF found poor evidence that any screening strategy for lung cancer decreases mortality. (See Appendix Table 2 for a description of the USPSTF classification of levels of evidence.) Because of the invasive nature of diagnostic testing and the possibility of a high number of false-positive tests in certain populations, there is potential for significant harms from screening. Therefore, the USPSTF could not determine the balance between the benefits and harms of screening for lung cancer.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Appendix Table 2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Strength of Overall Evidence

 

Clinical Considerations

The benefit of screening for lung cancer has not been established in any group, including asymptomatic high-risk populations such as older smokers. The balance of harms and benefits becomes increasingly unfavorable for persons at lower risk, such as nonsmokers.

The sensitivity of LDCT for detecting lung cancer is 4 times greater than the sensitivity of CXR. However, LDCT is also associated with a greater number of false-positive results, more radiation exposure, and increased costs compared with CXR.

Because of the high rate of false-positive results, many patients will undergo invasive diagnostic procedures as a result of lung cancer screening. Although the morbidity and mortality rates from these procedures in asymptomatic individuals are not available, mortality rates due to complications from surgical interventions in symptomatic patients reportedly range from 1.3% to 11.6%; morbidity rates range from 8.8% to 44%, with higher rates associated with larger resections.

Other potential harms of screening are potential anxiety and concern as a result of false-positive tests, as well as possible false reassurance due to false-negative results. However, these harms have not been adequately studied.

The brief review of the evidence that is normally included in USPSTF recommendations is available in the complete recommendation statement on the USPSTF Web site (http://www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov).

Recommendations of Others

Lung cancer screening recommendations from the American Cancer Society (1) can be accessed at http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PUB/content/PUB_3_8X_American_Cancer_Society_Guidelines_for_the_Early_Detection_of_Cancer_update_2001.asp. The policy of the American Academy of Family Physicians (2) can be accessed at http://www.aafp.org/x24974.xml. Recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care can be accessed through its Web site at http://www.ctfphc.org. Relevant guidelines on lung cancer screening from other organizations can be accessed through the National Guideline Clearinghouse at http://www.guideline.gov.

Appendix

Members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are Alfred O. Berg, MD, MPH, Chair, (University of Washington, Seattle, Washington); Janet D. Allan, PhD, RN, CS, Vice-Chair (University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland); Paul Frame, MD (Tri-County Family Medicine, Cohocton, and University of Rochester, Rochester, New York); Charles J. Homer, MD, MPH (National Initiative for Children's Healthcare Quality, Boston, Massachusetts); Mark S. Johnson, MD, MPH (University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey–New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey); Jonathan D. Klein, MD, MPH (University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, New York); Tracy A. Lieu, MD, MPH (Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts); C. Tracy Orleans, PhD (The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, New Jersey); Jeffrey F. Peipert, MD, MPH (Women and Infants' Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island); Nola J. Pender, PhD, RN (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan); Albert L. Siu, MD, MSPH (Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York); Steven M. Teutsch, MD, MPH (Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, Pennsylvania); Carolyn Westhoff, MD, MSc (Columbia University, New York, New York); and Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH (Virginia Commonwealth University, Fairfax, Virginia). This list includes members of the Task Force at the time this recommendation was finalized. For a list of current Task Force members, go to http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfab.htm.

Author and Article Information

Top Author & Article Info References

From the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland.

Disclaimer: Recommendations made by the USPSTF are independent of the U.S. government. They should not be construed as an official position of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Requests for Single Reprints: Reprints are available from the USPSTF Web site (http://www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov) and in print through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Publications Clearinghouse (800-358-9295).

References

Top Author & Article Info References

1.  Smith RA, Mettlin CJ, Davis KJ, Eyre H. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2000;50:34-49. [PMID: 10735014] Accessed at http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PUB/content/PUB_3_8X_American_Cancer_Society_Guidelines_for_the_Early_Detection_of_Cancer_update_2001.asp on 12 March 2004.[Abstract]

2.  American Academy of Family Physicians. Recommendations for Periodic Health Examinations. Accessed at http://www.aafp.org/x24974.xml on 15 March 2004.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Reddit

Technorati

Twitter

Related articles in Annals:

Clinical Guidelines
Lung Cancer Screening with Sputum Cytologic Examination, Chest Radiography, and Computed Tomography: An Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Linda L. Humphrey, Steven Teutsch, AND Mark Johnson

Annals 2004 140: 740-753. [ABSTRACT][SUMMARY][Full Text]  

Summaries for Patients
Screening for Lung Cancer: Recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Annals 2004 140: I-88. [Full Text]  

Letters
Screening for Lung Cancer
Ned Calonge AND Janet D. Allan

Annals 2004 141: 650. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Y.-G. Fan, P. Hu, Y. Jiang, R.-S. Chang, S.-X. Yao, W. Wang, J. He, P. Prorok, and Y.-L. Qiao Association Between Sputum Atypia and Lung Cancer Risk in an Occupational Cohort in Yunnan, China Chest, March 1, 2009; 135(3): 778 - 785. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. B. Petitti, S. M. Teutsch, M. B. Barton, G. F. Sawaya, J. K. Ockene, T. DeWitt, and on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task For Update on the Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Insufficient Evidence Ann Intern Med, February 3, 2009; 150(3): 199 - 205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. Molina, P. Yang, S. D. Cassivi, S. E. Schild, and A. A. Adjei Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Treatment, and Survivorship Mayo Clin. Proc., May 1, 2008; 83(5): 584 - 594. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Wong, J. R. Chapman, and J. C. Craig Cancer Screening in Renal Transplant Recipients: What Is the Evidence? Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., March 1, 2008; 3(Supplement_2): S87 - S100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. F. Yankelevitz, W. C. Black, D. R. Aberle, C. D. Berg, and on behalf of the Executive Committee of the Nation Will the National Lung Screening Trial Be Able to Demonstrate a Mortality Reduction? Radiology, February 1, 2008; 246(2): 653 - 654. [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Hunt, M. Siva, R. Southon, and T. Treasure Does lung cancer screening with low-dose computerised tomography (LDCT) improve disease-free survival? Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, October 1, 2006; 5(5): 612 - 615. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Hunt, M. Siva, R. Southon, and T. Treasure Does lung cancer screening with chest X-ray improve disease-free survival? Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, August 1, 2006; 5(4): 483 - 487. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. E. Weinberger Update in pulmonary medicine. Ann Intern Med, March 7, 2006; 144(5): 358 - 363. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Gianakos Preventing Medical Errors, Avoiding Litigation: Not Easy To Do in 2004 Chest, November 1, 2004; 126(5): 1408 - 1409. [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Calonge and J. D. Allan Screening for Lung Cancer Ann Intern Med, October 19, 2004; 141(8): 650 - 650. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Diagnosis and Initial Management of Nonmalignant Diseases Related to Asbestos Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., September 15, 2004; 170(6): 691 - 715. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Screening for Lung Cancer: Insufficient Evidence Journal Watch (General), May 21, 2004; 2004(521): 2 - 2. [Full Text]

Rapid Responses: