Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Lung cancer screening white paper: a slippery step forward?

Alberto Ruano-Ravina, Mariano Provencio-Pulla, Alberto Fernández-Villar
European Respiratory Journal 2015 46: 1519-1520; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00847-2015
Alberto Ruano-Ravina
1Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
2CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública, CIBERESP, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: alberto.ruano@usc.es
Mariano Provencio-Pulla
3Service of Oncology, Hospital Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain
4Instituto de Investigación Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alberto Fernández-Villar
5Service of Neumology, University Hospital Complex of Vigo, Vigo, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The recent white paper on lung cancer has some insights, but also some misconceptions http://ow.ly/RZLmM

To the Editor:

We have read with great interest the White Paper on lung cancer screening published jointly by the European Respiratory Society and the European Society of Radiology [1]. While it has some thoughtful insights, it also has some misconceptions.

1) Use of evidence. The benefit of lung cancer screening is controversial. Even in the USA, the limits that Medicare put on screening are very substantial in terms of requiring registries and limiting screening centres. There are different recommendations from scientific societies based on the same evidence (age range, ex-smokers inclusion). The American Academy of Family Physicians and others do not even recommend screening [2, 3]. The mortality benefit of lung cancer screening is not 20% but rather 16% (20% lower) according to published data using a longer National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) follow-up [4]. This is an important point that reduces the screening benefit. An extremely relevant limitation of lung cancer screening observed in the NLST is a low downstaging. Downstaging is the core objective of any screening programme as it allows the modification of the clinical course of a disease. The first and second incidence rounds of NLST showed 59% and 64% of stage I lung cancers compared with 54.6% in the prevalence round [5]. Stage I downstaging with lung cancer is below 10%. The authors state that 60–80% of screening-detected cancers will be stage I and this is an overstatement which can lead to misinterpretation [1]. 30% of screen-detected lung cancers in incidence rounds are stages III or IV in the NLST.

2) Overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis exists and is higher than the 18% observed by Patz et al. [6] when comparing computed tomography (CT) with chest radiography in the NLST. As the White Paper correctly points out, radiography used for lung cancer screening also showed overdiagnosis in other studies [7]. It is logical therefore to think that overdiagnosis is even higher when comparing chest CT with standard practice without screening. Furthermore, overdiagnosis, by definition, biases results towards a better survival. The higher the rate of overdiagnosis in a given screening programme, the higher the benefit achieved (lower mortality and lower adverse effects related to screening).

3) Radiation induced cancers. In our opinion, the White Paper underscores the importance of radiation induced cancers. A person undergoing lung cancer screening would suffer more than 25 low-dose CTs. Considering the number of false positives, even in case of using volumetric criteria to reduce false positives, it is expected that at least one in five incidence screens would be a false positive and therefore need extra image-based work-up. A diagnostic CT uses much more than 2–3 mSv and such screening would occur at least five times in the 25 years of screening. This radiation dose would be higher than that received by atomic bomb survivors or nuclear plant workers (40 mSv) [8].

4) Cost-effectiveness of health interventions. The cost matters, and lung cancer screening which includes diagnostic work-up of large numbers of positive patients is extremely expensive. $81 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) is a high cost [9], and the upper limit of this estimation is $186 000. Cost per QALY for ex-smokers, which comprised 52% of NLST patients, is $615 000. We have to add the cost of implementation of a lung cancer screening programme, which is also very high (purchase of dedicated CTs, dedicated personnel, an information system and so on). The cost per QALY for tobacco cessation interventions ranges between €1000 and €5000 [10]. It is obvious that the savings obtained by quitting smoking are significant. If we consider the cost-opportunity, smoking cessation reduces the risk of many diseases and extends lifespan an average of 10 years [11]. The cost of lung cancer screening might also have important differences depending on the European country applying it. Cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation has to be included in lung cancer screening debate.

It seems too early to promote lung cancer screening in Europe due to the aforementioned reasons. While lung cancer screening was shown as beneficial in only one study, this benefit is not exempt of risks. The downstaging observed is discrete. It is estimated that lung cancer screening might prevent between 6500 and 8000 annual lung cancer deaths in the USA, 5% of the total annual lung cancer deaths [12]. For each 1000 screened individuals, lung cancer deaths will be reduced from 21 to 18 (16%). From different points of view, the impact of screening on lung cancer deaths is very low [13].

Finally, no European study has indicated any benefit related with lung cancer screening and researchers are currently working on a European Lung Cancer pooling study. Recent results of the DANTE (Detection and Screening of Early Lung Cancer with Novel Imaging Technology and Molecular Assays) study do not show any benefit [14], the same as the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial [15]. The reason for divergence between European studies and NSLT is currently unknown. It might be due to selection bias in NSLT (younger age or higher education of participants) or the selection of excellent participating centres (low surgical mortality). One last reason, but not less important, is the different health system model used in each geographical area. Is there such strong evidence to promote the introduction of lung cancer screening in Europe? Has its cost-effectiveness been demonstrated compared with cheaper alternatives? Are we in such a hurry that we cannot wait some months for the European Pooling or Nelson study results? With the current evidence, lung cancer screening should be restricted to the individual discussion patient-clinician. In our opinion, the white paper is a slippery step forward that might not be beneficial to European patients and that threatens the economic sustainability of European health services.

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: None declared

  • Received May 28, 2015.
  • Accepted June 17, 2015.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2015

References

  1. ↵
    1. Kauczor H-U,
    2. Bonomo L,
    3. Gaga M, et al.
    ESR/ERS white paper on lung cancer screening. Eur Respir J 2015; 46: 28–39.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    American Academy of Family Physicians. www.aafp.org/patient-care/clinical-recommendations/all/lung-cancer.html Date last accessed: June 16, 2015.
  3. ↵
    1. Frauenfelder T,
    2. Puhan MA,
    3. Lazor R, et al.
    Early detection of lung cancer: a statement from an expert panel of the Swiss university hospitals on lung cancer screening. Respir Int Rev Thorac Dis 2014; 87: 254–264.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Pinsky PF,
    2. Church TR,
    3. Izmirlian G, et al.
    The National Lung Screening Trial: results stratified by demographics, smoking history, and lung cancer histology. Cancer 2013; 119: 3976–3983.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 395–409.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. Patz EF Jr.,
    2. Pinsky P,
    3. Gatsonis C, et al.
    Overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174: 269–274.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Marcus PM,
    2. Bergstralh EJ,
    3. Zweig MH, et al.
    Extended lung cancer incidence follow-up in the Mayo Lung Project and overdiagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 748–756.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. McCunney RJ,
    2. Li J
    . Radiation risks in lung cancer screening programs: a comparison with nuclear industry workers and atomic bomb survivors. Chest 2014; 145: 618–624.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. Black WC,
    2. Keeler EB,
    3. Soneji SS
    . Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 388.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Flack S,
    2. Taylor M,
    3. Trueman P
    . Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions for Smoking Cessation. University of York; 2007 p. 77. Available from www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph10/resources/smoking-cessation-services-economics-modelling-report-2 Date last accessed: June 16, 2015.
  11. ↵
    1. Jha P,
    2. Peto R
    . Global effects of smoking, of quitting, and of taxing tobacco. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 60–68.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. ↵
    1. Harris RP
    . Starting a new discussion about screening for lung cancer. JAMA 2015; 313: 717–718.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Woolf SH,
    2. Purnell JQ,
    3. Simon SM, et al.
    Translating evidence into population health improvement: strategies and barriers. Annu Rev Public Health 2015; 36: 463–482.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Infante M,
    2. Cavuto S,
    3. Lutman FR, et al.
    Long-Term Follow-up Results of the DANTE Trial, a Randomized Study of Lung Cancer Screening with Spiral Computed Tomography. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015; 191: 1166–1175.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Saghir Z,
    2. Dirksen A,
    3. Ashraf H, et al.
    CT screening for lung cancer brings forward early disease. The randomised Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial: status after five annual screening rounds with low-dose CT. Thorax 2012; 67: 296–301.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 46 Issue 5 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 46 (5)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Lung cancer screening white paper: a slippery step forward?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Lung cancer screening white paper: a slippery step forward?
Alberto Ruano-Ravina, Mariano Provencio-Pulla, Alberto Fernández-Villar
European Respiratory Journal Nov 2015, 46 (5) 1519-1520; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00847-2015

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Lung cancer screening white paper: a slippery step forward?
Alberto Ruano-Ravina, Mariano Provencio-Pulla, Alberto Fernández-Villar
European Respiratory Journal Nov 2015, 46 (5) 1519-1520; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00847-2015
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Lung cancer
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Agora

  • Balancing the risks and benefits of in-circuit bacterial filters
  • Polyurethane foam degradation in CPAP devices for sleep apnoea
  • Rifapentine access in Europe: concerns over key TB treatment
Show more Agora

Correspondence

  • Balancing the risks and benefits of in-circuit bacterial filters
  • Polyurethane foam degradation in CPAP devices for sleep apnoea
  • Rifapentine access in Europe: concerns over key TB treatment
Show more Correspondence

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society