Home |
Current Issue |
Past Issues |
In the Clinic |
ACP Journal Club |
CME |
Collections |
Audio/Video |
Mobile |
Subscribe |
Tools |
Help |
ACP Online
|
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.
CLINICAL GUIDELINES
Lung Cancer Screening: Recommendation Statement
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.)
|
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.
|
Clinical Considerations
|
|---|
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
|
|---|
Appendix
|
|---|
Author and Article Information
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
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
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
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.
Related articles in Annals:
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
U. Seybold, N. Landauer, S. Hillebrand, and F.-D. Goebel Senna-Induced Hepatitis in a Poor Metabolizer Ann Intern Med, October 19, 2004; 141(8): 650 - 651. [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] |
||||
Read all Rapid Responses
|