Screening for lung cancer with computed tomography: protocol for systematic reviews for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Pillay J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10943889 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Screening for lung cancer with computed tomography: protocol for systematic reviews for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.
Pillay Jennifer J Rahman Sholeh S Klarenbach Scott S Reynolds Donna L DL Tessier Laure A LA Thériault Guylène G Persaud Nav N Finley Christian C Leighl Natasha N McInnes Matthew D F MDF Garritty Chantelle C Traversy Gregory G Tan Maria M Hartling Lisa L
Systematic reviews 20240316 1
<h4>Purpose</h4>Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in Canada, and because early cancers are often asymptomatic screening aims to prevent mortality by detecting cancer earlier when treatment is more likely to be curative. These reviews will inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for lung cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>We will update the review on the benefits and harms of screening with CT conducted for the task force in 2015 and pe ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeTo inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening in a primary care setting for hypertension in adults aged 18 years and older. This protocol outlines the scope and methods for a series of systematic reviews and one overview of reviews.MethodsTo evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for hypertension, the Task Force will rely on the relevant key questions from the 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force systematic review. In addition, a series of reviews will be conducted to identify, appraise, and synthesize the evidence on (1) the association of blood pressure measurement methods and future cardiovascular (CVD)-related outcomes, (2) thresholds for discussions of treatment initiation, and (3) patient acceptability of hypertension screening methods. For the review of blood pressure measurement methods and future CVD-related outcomes, we will perform a de novo review and search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and APA PsycInfo for randomized controlled trials, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, nested case-control studies, and within-arm analyses of intervention studies. For the thresholds for discussions of treatment initiation review, we will perform an overview of reviews and update results from a relevant 2019 UK NICE review. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews. For the acceptability review, we will perform a de novo systematic review and search MEDLINE, Embase, and APA PsycInfo for randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and observational studies with comparison groups. Websites of relevant organizations, gray literature sources, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews will be hand-searched. Title and abstract screening will be completed by two independent reviewers. Full-text screening, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) will be completed independently by two reviewers. Results from included studies will be synthesized narratively and pooled via meta-analysis when appropriate. The GRADE approach will be used to assess the certainty of evidence for outcomes.DiscussionThe results of the evidence reviews will be used to inform Canadian recommendations on screening for hypertension in adults aged 18 years and older.Systematic review registrationThis protocol is registered on PROSPERO and is available on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/8w4tz).
| S-EPMC10768239 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for prostate cancer in adults aged 18 years and older in primary care. This protocol outlines the planned scope and methods for a series of systematic reviews.MethodsUpdates of two systematic reviews and a de novo review will be conducted to synthesize the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and/or digital rectal examination (DRE) (with or without additional information) and patient values and preferences. Outcomes for the benefits of screening include reduced prostate cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, and incidence of metastatic prostate cancer. Outcomes for the harms of screening include false-positive screening tests, overdiagnosis, complications due to biopsy, and complications of treatment including incontinence (urinary or bowel), and erectile dysfunction. The quality of life or functioning (overall and disease-specific) and psychological effects outcomes are considered as a possible benefit or harm. Outcomes for the values and preferences review include quantitative or qualitative information regarding the choice to screen or intention to undergo screening. For the reviews on benefits or harms, we will search for randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized, and controlled studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. For the review on values and preferences, we will search for experimental or observational studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo. For all reviews, we will also search websites of relevant organizations, gray literature, and reference lists of included studies. Title and abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments will be completed independently by pairs of reviewers with any disagreements resolved by consensus or by consulting with a third reviewer. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach will be used to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.DiscussionThe series of systematic reviews will be used by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to update their 2014 guideline on screening for prostate cancer in adults aged 18 years and older. Systematic review registration This review has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022314407) and is available on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/dm32k).
| S-EPMC9609189 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe optimum screening policy for lung cancer is unknown.ObjectiveTo identify efficient computed tomography (CT) screening scenarios in which relatively more lung cancer deaths are averted for fewer CT screening examinations.DesignComparative modeling study using 5 independent models.Data sourcesThe National Lung Screening Trial; the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening trial; the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; and the U.S. Smoking History Generator.Target populationU.S. cohort born in 1950.Time horizonCohort followed from ages 45 to 90 years.PerspectiveSocietal.Intervention576 scenarios with varying eligibility criteria (age, pack-years of smoking, years since quitting) and screening intervals.Outcome measuresBenefits included lung cancer deaths averted or life-years gained. Harms included CT examinations, false-positive results (including those obtained from biopsy/surgery), overdiagnosed cases, and radiation-related deaths.Results of best-case scenarioThe most advantageous strategy was annual screening from ages 55 through 80 years for ever-smokers with a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and ex-smokers with less than 15 years since quitting. It would lead to 50% (model ranges, 45% to 54%) of cases of cancer being detected at an early stage (stage I/II), 575 screening examinations per lung cancer death averted, a 14% (range, 8.2% to 23.5%) reduction in lung cancer mortality, 497 lung cancer deaths averted, and 5250 life-years gained per the 100,000-member cohort. Harms would include 67,550 false-positive test results, 910 biopsies or surgeries for benign lesions, and 190 overdiagnosed cases of cancer (3.7% of all cases of lung cancer [model ranges, 1.4% to 8.3%]).Results of sensitivity analysisThe number of cancer deaths averted for the scenario varied across models between 177 and 862; the number of overdiagnosed cases of cancer varied between 72 and 426.LimitationsScenarios assumed 100% screening adherence. Data derived from trials with short duration were extrapolated to lifetime follow-up.ConclusionAnnual CT screening for lung cancer has a favorable benefit-harm ratio for individuals aged 55 through 80 years with 30 or more pack-years' exposure to smoking.Primary funding sourceNational Cancer Institute.
| S-EPMC4116741 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceCurrently, computed tomography (CT) is used for lung cancer screening (LCS) among populations with various levels of compliance to the eligibility criteria from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations and may represent suboptimal allocation of health care resources.ObjectiveTo evaluate the appropriateness of CT LCS according to the USPSTF eligibility criteria.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey. Participants included individuals who responded to the LCS module administered in 20 states and had valid answers to questions regarding screening and smoking history. Data were analyzed between October 2021 and August 2022.ExposuresScreening eligibility groups were categorized according to the USPSTF 2013 recommendations, and subgroups of individuals who underwent LCS were analyzed.Main outcomes and measuresMain outcomes included LCS among the screening-eligible population and the proportions of the screened populations according to compliance categories established from the USPSTF 2013 and 2021 recommendations. In addition, the association between respondents' characteristics and LCS was evaluated for the subgroup who were screened despite not meeting any of the 3 USPSTF screening criteria: age, pack-year, and years since quitting smoking.ResultsA total of 96 097 respondents were identified for the full study cohort, and 2 subgroups were constructed: (1) 3374 respondents who reported having a CT or computerized axial tomography to check for lung cancer and (2) 33 809 respondents who did not meet any screening eligibility criteria. The proportion of participants who were under 50 years old was 53.1%; between 50 and 54, 9.1%; between 55 and 79, 33.8%; and over 80, 4.0%. A total of 51 536 (50.9%) of the participants were female. According to the USPSTF 2013 recommendation, 807 (12.8%) of the screening-eligible population underwent LCS. Among those who were screened, only 807 (20.9%) met all 3 screening eligibility criteria, whereas 538 (20.1%) failed to meet any criteria. Among respondents in subgroup 2, being of older age and having a history of stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, or diabetes were associated with higher likelihood of LCS.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of the BRFSS 2019 survey, the low uptake rate among screening-eligible patients undermined the goal of LCS of early detection. Suboptimal screening patterns could increase health system costs and add financial stress, psychological burden, and physical harms to low-risk patients, while failing to provide high-quality preventive services to individuals at high risk of lung cancer.
| S-EPMC9679877 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2013 lung cancer screening guidelines, which recommend annual screening for adults aged 55 through 80 years who have a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.ObjectiveTo inform the USPSTF guidelines by estimating the benefits and harms associated with various low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening strategies.Design, setting, and participantsComparative simulation modeling with 4 lung cancer natural history models for individuals from the 1950 and 1960 US birth cohorts who were followed up from aged 45 through 90 years.ExposuresScreening with varying starting ages, stopping ages, and screening frequency. Eligibility criteria based on age, cumulative pack-years, and years since quitting smoking (risk factor-based) or on age and individual lung cancer risk estimation using risk prediction models with varying eligibility thresholds (risk model-based). A total of 1092 LDCT screening strategies were modeled. Full uptake and adherence were assumed for all scenarios.Main outcomes and measuresEstimated lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained (benefits) compared with no screening. Estimated lifetime number of LDCT screenings, false-positive results, biopsies, overdiagnosed cases, and radiation-related lung cancer deaths (harms).ResultsEfficient screening programs estimated to yield the most benefits for a given number of screenings were identified. Most of the efficient risk factor-based strategies started screening at aged 50 or 55 years and stopped at aged 80 years. The 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria were not among the efficient strategies for the 1960 US birth cohort. Annual strategies with a minimum criterion of 20 pack-years of smoking were efficient and, compared with the 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria, were estimated to increase screening eligibility (20.6%-23.6% vs 14.1% of the population ever eligible), lung cancer deaths averted (469-558 per 100 000 vs 381 per 100 000), and life-years gained (6018-7596 per 100 000 vs 4882 per 100 000). However, these strategies were estimated to result in more false-positive test results (1.9-2.5 per person screened vs 1.9 per person screened with the USPSTF strategy), overdiagnosed lung cancer cases (83-94 per 100 000 vs 69 per 100 000), and radiation-related lung cancer deaths (29.0-42.5 per 100 000 vs 20.6 per 100 000). Risk model-based vs risk factor-based strategies were estimated to be associated with more benefits and fewer radiation-related deaths but more overdiagnosed cases.Conclusions and relevanceMicrosimulation modeling studies suggested that LDCT screening for lung cancer compared with no screening may increase lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained when optimally targeted and implemented. Screening individuals at aged 50 or 55 years through aged 80 years with 20 pack-years or more of smoking exposure was estimated to result in more benefits than the 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria and less disparity in screening eligibility by sex and race/ethnicity.
| S-EPMC9208912 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPrior studies suggest overuse of nonrecommended lung cancer screening tests in U.S. community practice and underuse of recommended tests.MethodsData from the 2010 and 2015 National Health Interview Surveys was analyzed from 2016 to 2018. Prevalence, populations, and number of chest computed tomography (CT) and chest x-ray tests were estimated for people who did and did not meet U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for lung cancer screening, among people aged ≥40 years without lung cancer.ResultsIn 2015, among those who met USPSTF criteria, 4.4% (95% CI=3.0%, 6.6%), or 360,000 (95% CI=240,000, 535,000) people reported lung cancer screening with a chest CT; and 8.5% (95% CI=6.5%, 11.1%), or 689,000 (95% CI=526,000, 898,000) people reported a chest x ray. Among those who did not meet USPSTF criteria, 2.3% (95% CI=2.0%, 2.6%), or 3,259,000 (95% CI=2,850,000, 3,724,000) people reported a chest x ray; and 1.3% (95% CI=1.1%, 1.5%), or 1,806,000 (95% CI=1,495,000, 2,173,000) people reported a chest CT. The estimated population meeting USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening in 2015 was 8,098,000 (95% CI=7,533,000, 8,702,000), which was smaller than the 9,620,000 people (95% CI=8,960,000, 10,325,000) in 2010.ConclusionsThe number of adults inappropriately screened for lung cancer greatly exceeds the number screened according to USPSTF recommendations, the prevalence of appropriate lung cancer screening is low, and the population meeting USPSTF criteria is shrinking. To realize the potential benefits of screening, better processes to appropriately triage eligible individuals to screening, plus screening with a USPSTF-recommended test, would be beneficial.
| S-EPMC6319382 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC543939 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11656969 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated its recommendation to expand lung cancer screening (LCS) eligibility and mitigate disparities. Although this increased the number of non-White individuals who are eligible for LCS, the update's impact on drivers of disparities is less clear. This analysis focuses on racial disparities among Black individuals because members of this group disproportionately share late-stage lung cancer diagnoses, despite typically having a lower intensity smoking history compared to non-Hispanic White individuals.MethodsWe used data from the National Health Interview Survey to examine the impact of the 2021 eligibility criteria on racial disparities by factors such as education, poverty, employment history, and insurance status. We also examined preventive care use and reasons for delaying medical care.ResultsWhen comparing Black individuals and non-Hispanic White individuals, our analyses show significant differences in who would be eligible for LCS: Those who do not have a high school diploma (28.7% vs. 17.0%, p = 0.002), are in poverty (26.2% vs. 14.9%, p < 0.001), and have not worked in the past 12 months (66.5% vs. 53.9%, p = 0.009). Further, our analyses also show that more Black individuals delayed medical care due to not having transportation (11.1% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.001) compared to non-Hispanic White individuals.ConclusionsOur results suggest that despite increasing the number of Black individuals who are eligible for LCS, the 2021 USPSTF recommendation highlights ongoing socioeconomic disparities that need to be addressed to ensure equitable access.
| S-EPMC9972155 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued its 2021 recommendation on lung cancer screening, which lowered the starting age for screening from 55 to 50 years and the minimum cumulative smoking exposure from 30 to 20 pack-years relative to its 2013 recommendation. Although costs are expected to increase because of the expanded screening eligibility criteria, it is unknown whether the new guidelines for lung cancer screening are cost-effective.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the 2021 USPSTF recommendation for lung cancer screening compared with the 2013 recommendation and to explore the cost-effectiveness of 6 alternative screening strategies that maintained a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years and an ending age for screening of 80 years but varied the starting ages for screening (50 or 55 years) and the number of years since smoking cessation (≤15, ≤20, or ≤25).Design, setting, and participantsA comparative cost-effectiveness analysis using 4 independently developed microsimulation models that shared common inputs to assess the population-level health benefits and costs of the 2021 recommended screening strategy and 6 alternative screening strategies compared with the 2013 recommended screening strategy. The models simulated a 1960 US birth cohort. Simulated individuals entered the study at age 45 years and were followed up until death or age 90 years, corresponding to a study period from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2050.ExposuresLow-dose computed tomography in lung cancer screening programs with a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years.Main outcomes and measuresIncremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of the 2021 vs 2013 USPSTF lung cancer screening recommendations as well as 6 alternative screening strategies vs the 2013 USPSTF screening strategy. Strategies with a mean ICER lower than $100 000 per QALY were deemed cost-effective.ResultsThe 2021 USPSTF recommendation was estimated to be cost-effective compared with the 2013 recommendation, with a mean ICER of $72 564 (range across 4 models, $59 493-$85 837) per QALY gained. The 2021 recommendation was not cost-effective compared with 6 alternative strategies that used the 20 pack-year criterion. Strategies associated with the most cost-effectiveness included those that expanded screening eligibility to include a greater number of former smokers who had not smoked for a longer duration (ie, ≤20 years and ≤25 years since smoking cessation vs ≤15 years since smoking cessation). In particular, the strategy that screened former smokers who quit within the past 25 years and began screening at age 55 years was associated with screening coverage closest to that of the 2021 USPSTF recommendation yet yielded greater cost-effectiveness, with a mean ICER of $66 533 (range across 4 models, $55 693-$80 539).Conclusions and relevanceThis economic evaluation found that the 2021 USPSTF recommendation for lung cancer screening was cost-effective; however, alternative screening strategies that maintained a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years but included individuals who quit smoking within the past 25 years may be more cost-effective and warrant further evaluation.
| S-EPMC8532037 | biostudies-literature